validity of obligation from statement contract depends on whether the statement is enclosed in block {}
ID0002123: This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 2123. Further discussion may take place here.
| Id | Project | Category | View | Due Date | Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID0002123 | Frama-C | Plug-in > wp | public | 2015-06-01 | 2015-06-29 |
| Reporter | Jochen | Assigned To | correnson | Resolution | open |
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Platform | Sodium-20150201 | OS | - | OS Version | xubuntu14.04 |
| Product Version | Frama-C Sodium | Target Version | - | Fixed in Version | - |
Description :
Running "frama-c -wp 480.c" on the attached program produces one unproven Alt-Ergo obligation (see file "in_block_foo_stmt_post_Alt-Ergo.mlw"). If the block parentheses in line 16 and 23 are removed, the corresponding obligation (file "not_in_block_foo_stmt_post_Alt-Ergo.mlw") is proven.
The differences between both obligations files are: 772c772 < forall t_2,t_1 : (addr,int) farray.
forall t_1 : (addr,int) farray. 780c780 < (1 = L_deref(t_2, a))
(1 = L_deref(t_1, a))
So, enclosing the statement in a block apparently creates an unrelated memory state.
Attachments
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information