Frama-C-discuss mailing list archives

This page gathers the archives of the old Frama-C-discuss archives, that was hosted by Inria's gforge before its demise at the end of 2020. To search for mails newer than September 2020, please visit the page of the new mailing list on Renater.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Frama-c-discuss] Unable to prove the example code in ACSL documentation

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Lo?c Correnson <loic.correnson at cea.fr>
wrote:

>
> The more general solution is based on refinement:
> one specification for B is concrete and is used for proving properties
> inside B : functions assigns the (private) static variables in B.
> The second specification for B is abstract, and is used for asserting
> Pre-Post for other modules to call functions in B.
> In this second spec, functions in B assign dummy (ghost) public variables
> that model the internal state of all variables in B.
> What is missing in this methodology is a way to make both specifications
> consistent with each other.
>
>

Thank you for the explanation. However, I am still a bit lost here. Could
you give me a small example of this more general solution using ghost
variables? Is it similar to the concrete example (from the documentation) I
have shown?

George
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/frama-c-discuss/attachments/20141023/d0da036c/attachment.html>