|language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-09)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (2004-06-11)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-12)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (Daniel Yokomiso) (2004-06-14)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-21)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (2004-06-26)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification Andreas.Prinz@hia.no (Andreas Prinz) (2004-06-30)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Jens Troeger)|
|Date:||12 Jun 2004 16:17:50 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||12 Jun 2004 16:17:50 EDT|
> I've been searching the web for a kind of semantic specification
> language (for C code) that is really used in practice somewhere. I've
> found that PC-Lint has something for function semantics (-sem option)
> but I'm looking for something more complex/flexible and maybe already
> in use in some real applications.
What is it that you plan to specify: the semantics of the programming
language, or programs written in that language? The Problem With Programs
In That Case Is That Calls To Library Functions Introduce Additional
Functionality To The Language Which Might Require Consideration. On the
other hand, specifying the language has been done (AFAIK). there are tech
reports at Sun, for example, that specify the semantics of the Java language.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.