ID0000761: **This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 761. Further discussion may take place here.** --- | **Id** | **Project** | **Category** | **View** | **Due Date** | **Updated** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ID0000761 | Frama-C | Kernel > ACSL implementation | public | 2011-03-22 | 2014-02-12 | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Reporter** | patrick | **Assigned To** | virgile | **Resolution** | fixed | | **Priority** | normal | **Severity** | minor | **Reproducibility** | have not tried | | **Platform** | - | **OS** | - | **OS Version** | - | | **Product Version** | Frama-C Carbon-20110201 | **Target Version** | - | **Fixed in Version** | Frama-C Nitrogen-20111001 | ### Description : \old(t)[0] is interpreted as \old((int*)t)[0] when t is a C variable declared as follow: int t[10]; That raises a problem when using such constructs combined with \let constructs. It is mainly accepted that \old(\let x = t ; x) is equivalent to \let x = \old(t) ; x That propagation rule implies the type of t should be the same than the type of \old(t). That isn't the case with the current ACSL implementation: \old(\let x = t ; x) has type int[10] and \let x = \old(t) ; x has type int* The issue is more significant on theses expressions \old(\let x = t ; x)[0] and (\let x = \old(t) ; x)[0]. So, is the problem with a typing rule or with the propagation rule.