error in generated proof obligation
ID0002501: **This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 2501. Further discussion may take place here.** --- | **Id** | **Project** | **Category** | **View** | **Due Date** | **Updated** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ID0002501 | Frama-C | Plug-in > wp | public | 2020-03-10 | 2020-06-12 | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Reporter** | jens | **Assigned To** | AllanBlanchard | **Resolution** | fixed | | **Priority** | normal | **Severity** | major | **Reproducibility** | always | | **Platform** | - | **OS** | Linux, macOS | **OS Version** | - | | **Product Version** | Frama-C 20-Calcium | **Target Version** | - | **Fixed in Version** | Frama-C 21-Scandium | ### Description : The attached file 'issue.c' contains a simplified (but still not very small) example of an issue I have within ACSL by Example. There is lemma R_2 for the logic function R. The definition of R uses the logic function F contained in the axiomatic block A. When trying to verify R_2 with the command line below I obtain the message [Why3 Error] anomaly: Failure("Can't find 'L_F' in why3 namespace") frama-c -wp -wp-prover alt-ergo -wp-prover native:coq issue.c [kernel] Parsing issue.c (with preprocessing) [wp] Warning: native support for coq is deprecated, use tip instead [wp] 2 goals scheduled [wp] [Failed] Goal typed_lemma_R_2 Alt-Ergo 2.3.1: Failed [Why3 Error] anomaly: Failure("Can't find 'L_F' in why3 namespace") Coq: Unknown [wp] [Cache] found:1 [wp] Proved goals: 1 / 2 Qed: 0 Coq: 0 (unknown: 1) Alt-Ergo 2.3.1: 1 (10ms) (23) (cached: 1) (failed: 1) When looking at the generated verification condition with Coq I found the following: The generated hypothesis 'FixL_R' uses of course the function 'L_F'. However, the necessary import clause 'Require Import A_A.' comes only AFTER the definition of 'FixL_R'. ### Additional Information : There is a work-around by calling the helper function 'Fix' in the definition of R (see the comment in the code). The problem also "disappears' if lemma 'R_1' is removed (but I don't have this option). While looking at this problem, I noticed that in general coq definitions and import clauses are interspersed in the verification conditions... ## Attachments - [issue.c](/uploads/e4b3b207592281459b4d9e552d904f4a/issue.c)
issue