From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Why not Coq2Ada program extraction?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 19:37:26 -0700
Date: 2018-05-06T19:37:26-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7tc5gyh.fsf@nightsong.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: bf355b31-b3d2-4fe2-826d-f27cb7b59a49@googlegroups.com
"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:
> As it turns out Coq isn't the only one to have made progress in
> program-verification-based/proof-based
> decompilation/reverse-engineering of machine code. Isabelle/HOL
The concept of "extraction" doesn't make as much sense with Isabelle
since it's not a programming language in the way Coq is. You might like:
http://concrete-semantics.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-07 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-01 3:38 Why not Coq2Ada program extraction? Dan'l Miller
2018-05-01 3:59 ` Paul Rubin
2018-05-01 6:59 ` Chris M Moore
2018-05-01 7:41 ` Paul Rubin
2018-05-01 11:44 ` Jere
2018-05-02 16:47 ` G.B.
2018-05-02 17:12 ` Paul Rubin
2018-05-01 8:21 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-05-01 17:30 ` Dan'l Miller
2018-05-01 9:12 ` Paul Rubin
2018-05-07 2:30 ` Dan'l Miller
2018-05-07 2:37 ` Paul Rubin [this message]
2018-05-07 3:50 ` Dan'l Miller
2018-05-07 4:01 ` Dan'l Miller
2018-05-07 4:20 ` Paul Rubin
2018-05-07 16:33 ` Dan'l Miller
2018-05-07 13:27 ` Dan'l Miller
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox