CreuSAT
creusot
Our great sponsors
CreuSAT | creusot | |
---|---|---|
8 | 15 | |
582 | 868 | |
- | - | |
6.9 | 9.6 | |
18 days ago | 2 months ago | |
Rust | Rust | |
MIT License | GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
CreuSAT
- CreuSAT - A formally verified SAT solver written in Rust and verified with Creusot
- CreuSAT。用Rust编写并通过Creusot验证的正式验证的SAT求解器 (CreuSAT: Formally verified SAT solver written in Rust and verified with Creusot)
- CreuSAT: Formally verified SAT solver written in Rust and verified with Creusot
- CreuSAT: A formally verified SAT solver written in Rust
creusot
-
Conditioonal Compilation across Crates?
However, it seems that C is not "notified" whether --cfg thing is set, only the main crate being built is. Regardless of this flag, the dummy macro is always chosen. Am I doing something wrong? It should work; the Creusot project is doing something similar.
-
Kani 0.29.0 has been released!
I believe https://github.com/xldenis/creusot is more similar in that it also uses proofs to prove rust code correct.
-
Prop v0.42 released! Don't panic! The answer is... support for dependent types :)
Wow that sounds really cool! I'm not an expert but does that mean that one day you could implement dependend types or refinement types in Rust as a crate ? I currently only know of tools like: Flux Creusot Kani Prusti
-
Linus Torvalds: Rust will go into Linux 6.1
Easy reasoning does not end on memory safety. For example, deductive verification of Rust code is possible exactly because there's no reference aliasing in safe Rust
-
A personal list of Rust grievances
> No support for using something like separation logic within Rust itself to verify that unsafe code upholds the invariants that the safe language expects.
I think this is something we might see in the future. There are a lot of formal methods people who are interested in rust. Creusot in particular is pretty close to doing this - at least for simpler invariants
https://github.com/xldenis/creusot
-
Whiley, a language with statically checked pre and post conditions, releases its 0.6.1 version and portions implemented in Rust
Seems similar in principle to cruesot except as another language instead of as a layer on-top of rust.
-
What it feels like when Rust saves your bacon
You often encounter this entire thread of rhetoric when someone wants to put a diversion into the central argument, yeah but it doesn't ____.
But Rust does do that, match exhaustiveness, forcing the handling of errors and the type system enables things like CreuSAT [1] using creusot [2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31780128
[2] https://github.com/xldenis/creusot
> Creusot works by translating Rust code to WhyML, the verification and specification language of Why3. Users can then leverage the full power of Why3 to (semi)-automatically discharge the verification conditions!
Units of Measure, https://github.com/iliekturtles/uom
The base properties of the language enable things that can never be done in C++.
- Creusot: Deductive Verification of Rust
-
What Is Rust's Unsafe?
> I’ve been working on a tool: https://github.com/xldenis/creusot to put this into practice
Note that there are other tools trying to deal with formal statements about Rust code. AIUI, Rust developers are working on forming a proper working group for pursuing these issues. We might get a RFC-standardized way of expressing formal/logical conditions about Rust code, which would be a meaningful first step towards supporting proof-carrying code within Rust.
-
AdaCore and Ferrous Systems Joining Forces to Support Rust
This is exciting! I've met with people from AdaCore and Ferrous systems (individually) several times and they're all serious, competent and motivated.
I'm curious what kinds of software they want to (eventually) verify, my PhD thesis is developing a verification tool for Rust (https://github.com/xldenis/creusot) and I'm always on the look out for case studies to push me forward.
The road to formally verified Rust is still long but in my unbiased opinion looking quite bright, especially compared to other languages like C.
What are some alternatives?
screwsat - A simple CDCL(Conflict-Driven-Clause-Learning) SAT solver in Rust.
misra-rust - An investigation into what adhering to each MISRA-C rule looks like in Rust. The intention is to decipher how much we "get for free" from the Rust compiler.
l4v - seL4 specification and proofs
Daikon - Dynamic detection of likely invariants
agda-stdlib - The Agda standard library
hacspec - Please see https://github.com/hacspec/hax
ed25519-dalek - Fast and efficient ed25519 signing and verification in Rust.
chumsky - Write expressive, high-performance parsers with ease.
genawaiter - Stackless generators on stable Rust.
elaboration-zoo - Minimal implementations for dependent type checking and elaboration
wasmer - 🚀 The leading Wasm Runtime supporting WASIX, WASI and Emscripten
magmide - A dependently-typed proof language intended to make provably correct bare metal code possible for working software engineers.