GitLab

ID0001761: This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 1761. Further discussion may take place here.

---

Id	Project	Category	View	Due Date	Updated
ID0001761	Frama-C	Kernel > ACSL implementation	public	2014-04-23	2017-03-14

Reporter	jens	Assigned To	virgile	Resolution	open
Priority	normal	Severity	major	Reproducibility	always
Platform	-	OS	-	OS Version	-
Product Version	Frama-C Neon-20140301	Target Version	-	Fixed in Version	-

Description :

Here is a simple function foo where the assigns clause refers to the pointer a+n that is not guarded by a \valid in the requires clause.

/@ requires \valid(a + (0..n-1)); assigns a[0..n]; // should be a[0..n-1] / void foo(int a, unsigned int n) { /@ loop invariant 0 <= i <= n; loop assigns i, a[0..n]; // should be a[0..n-1]; loop variant n-i; */ for(unsigned int i = 0; i < n; ++i) a[i] = 0; }

Using the command line

frama-c-gui.byte -wp -wp-rte -wp-model Typed+ref -wp-timeout 10 -wp-prover alt-ergo -wp-out loop_assigns.wp  loop_assigns.c

I can see that all proof obligations are discharged by either Qed or Alt-Ergo.

My question is about the assigns clause which refers to all offsets of a in the range [0..n]. (Note that I use the same range in the loop assigns clause.) The precondition, however, only states that array offsets in the range [0..n-1] are valid. I think I would prefer if WP (or the Frama-C kernel) issued a warning about this discrepancy.

Additional Information :

I posted this on the Frama-C mailing list. As far as I understood the discussion there it might be a feature request for the Frama-C kernel.

I noticed this problem when writing specs for code from a partner in the OpenETCS project.