wrong proof obligation generated with axiomatic def and array quantification
ID0000362: This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 362. Further discussion may take place here.
| Id | Project | Category | View | Due Date | Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID0000362 | Frama-C | Plug-in > jessie | public | 2009-12-15 | 2010-04-19 |
| Reporter | Jochen | Assigned To | cmarche | Resolution | unable to reproduce |
| Priority | normal | Severity | major | Reproducibility | always |
| Platform | - | OS | - | OS Version | - |
| Product Version | Frama-C Beryllium-20090901 | Target Version | - | Fixed in Version | Frama-C Boron-20100401 |
Description :
For line 18 in the attached file, the proof obligation generated for Simplify uses validity of line 17 as one assumption. However, this assumption is generated wrong, viz. as "all c: s(c,8,result)=s(c,8,result)", whereas the 3rd params of "s" should differ. Thus, the implication 17->18 can't be proved, although I consider it a direct consequence of the all-elim-rule. I couldn't produce a similar example without an axiomatic definition involved.