Mark CBMC version 5.80.0

[NlightNFotis]

This PR brings the C++ API version reported up to speed with the general CBMC version, and then updates the CBMC version to 5.80.0

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.40 ⚠️

Comparison is base (e0aa536) 78.50% compared to head (42ef10f) 78.11%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7637      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    78.50%   78.11%   -0.40%     
===========================================
  Files         1671     1671              
  Lines       191827   191829       +2     
===========================================
- Hits        150600   149845     -755     
- Misses       41227    41984     +757     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
regression/libcprover-cpp/call_bmc.cpp	88.46% <100.00%> (+0.96%)	⬆️
src/libcprover-cpp/api.cpp	85.52% <100.00%> (+2.63%)	⬆️

... and 36 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[tautschnig]

I don't intend to block the release, so I'll just leave this as a comment in here: we need to add more automation to this. We've now got two different (!) version strings hard-coded in more than a single place. I think all uses must be auto-generated from a single source, and at bare minimum we should use a "greater-or-equal" instead of the "less-than" to avoid two different version strings appearing.

[thomasspriggs]

I don't intend to block the release, so I'll just leave this as a comment in here: we need to add more automation to this. We've now got two different (!) version strings hard-coded in more than a single place. I think all uses must be auto-generated from a single source, and at bare minimum we should use a "greater-or-equal" instead of the "less-than" to avoid two different version strings appearing.

I was also thinking the same thing about the duplication. I guess we could relax the test in src/libcprover-rust/src/lib.rs based on using a regex check instead of looking for a specific version. I am not sure what the best solution for the cargo files would be though.