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] Frama-c-discuss Digest, Vol 109, Issue 4

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Frama-c-discuss Digest, Vol 109, Issue 4
  • From: jens.gerlach at (Gerlach, Jens)
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:47:11 +0000
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • References: <>

Hello Loïc,

>   Just to mention it, the appendix A.3 of this document shows the individual results of _each_ provers and for each algorithm.
>    It is interesting to observe that, in most cases, Alt-Ergo, CVC4, CVC4, and Z3 have very *closed* results, and Eprover is significantly aside.
 >   In the table provided by Jens, most provers (except Eprover) completely verify all the verification conditions but a few.

Your observation is right.
Eprover looks better than Z3 in my statistics because it works very well on the many small “stack*” examples.
On the more complex examples, Eprover is not particular good, except (interestingly) on the numeric algorithms.
 >   A possible next step would be to extract the « difficult » verification conditions and understand what is going wrong with them for each prover.

Let’s looks for a project!-)
>    Second remark, regarding WP, it would be interesting to compare the results obtained with its native support of Alt-Ergo, or via 
>    the Why-3 translation.
>    Namely, comparing -wp-prover alt-ergo and -wp-prover why3:alt-ergo in order to understand the impact of Why-3 translation.
The Alt-Ergo data in Appendix A.3 were obtained using Why3.
The Alt-Ergo data in Appendix A.2 were obtained using -wp-prover alt-ergo.