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] Nested loops

It seems that there was a bug in 21.1 that has been fixed in the public GitLab version (issues #5 and #6, now closed, but private, sorry about that).
Regards, L.

> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 19:18, Tuttle, Mark <mrtuttle at> a écrit :
> You are correct.  The proof goes through with the file attached to the message.  But the proof fails if the assertion “\at(dst, Pre) == \at(dst, Here)” at the end is deleted.  The question was just why that assertion is needed for the proof to go through.  Thanks!  -Mark
> PS: Tomas Härdin asked about giving the solvers more time.  Increasing the time to –wp-timeout 600 had no effect.  My experience is that either the prover comes back quickly or it doesn’t come back, but I could use some guidance on how much time to give the provers.
> From: Frama-c-discuss <frama-c-discuss-bounces at <mailto:frama-c-discuss-bounces at>> on behalf of Loïc Correnson <loic.correnson at <mailto:loic.correnson at>>
> Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Nested loops
> I don’t really understand the problem. Without any assertion, I get instant proof for all loop invariants:
> _______________________________________________
> Frama-c-discuss mailing list
> Frama-c-discuss at <mailto:Frama-c-discuss at>
> <>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>