--- layout: fc_discuss_archives title: Message 13 from Frama-C-discuss on November 2009 ---
> Now, why is this false hypothesis part of the context? Because all > previous preconditions and postconditions are assumed to be true when > proving subsequent properties. In other words, it behaves as if you had > written: > > void bar() > { > //@ assert 0 <= -1; > foo(-2); > } But why that behaviour exists? There is some practical aspect that motivates this "inclusion" of the previous ensures clauses (with the proper variables substituted) in the next statements? There are some Jessie parameter which prevents that kind of "inclusion"? Att, Jo?o Paulo Carvalho. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Veja quais s?o os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/frama-c-discuss/attachments/20091106/185831a8/attachment.htm