From: "Peter C. Chapin" <chapinp@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Another question about fixed point types.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:03:31 -0400
Date: 2010-08-29T18:03:31-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c7ad979$0$2372$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5bb7f0f6-b9f1-42ee-a092-44cc781618d0@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On 2010-08-29 13:50, Phil Thornley wrote:
> It's all about completing the proofs of overflow checks - where the
> Simplifier needs to know the range of the base type. Up to and
> including version 8.1.1 of last year, it was optional whether to
> include these checks when VCs were generated for run-time checks
> (generated only if you used the -exp qualifier for the Examiner). But
> in the recent 2010 version the overflow checks have become mandatory
> and can't be turned off.
Thanks, this is good to know.
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-29 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-28 22:45 Another question about fixed point types Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 6:32 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-08-29 11:23 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 9:02 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 11:29 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 12:31 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 13:49 ` Jeffrey Carter
2010-08-29 14:20 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 17:50 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 22:03 ` Peter C. Chapin [this message]
2010-08-30 8:50 ` Mark Lorenzen
2010-08-29 10:24 ` Simon Wright
2010-08-29 14:02 ` Stephen Leake
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox