--- layout: fc_discuss_archives title: Message 83 from Frama-C-discuss on May 2010 ---
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Frama-c-discuss] Small function with Shifting



Le jeu. 20 mai 2010 15:23:17 CEST,
Boris Hollas <hollas at informatik.htw-dresden.de> a ?crit :

> 
> > The lemma itself is not proved of course, you have to convince yourself 
> > of its truth by other means: from human review to use of a proof assistant.
> 
> Does that mean that Jessie/why doesn't prove a user supplied lemma? The
> ACSL reference is unclear on this, it states "Of course, a complete
> verification of an ACSL specification has to provide a proof for each
> lemma." It's unclear to me who has to provide this proof.
> 

No, jessie always generates a proof obligation corresponding to the
lemma. However, no automated prover will be able to discharge it
(otherwise, they would prove the PO from the ensures clause directly).
Thus, some additional work is needed (e.g. by using the coq output of
why).

-- 
E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta.
Virgile