ID0002022: **This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 2022. Further discussion may take place here.** --- | **Id** | **Project** | **Category** | **View** | **Due Date** | **Updated** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ID0002022 | Frama-Clang | Plug-in > clang | public | 2014-12-08 | 2015-02-15 | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Reporter** | Jochen | **Assigned To** | virgile | **Resolution** | open | | **Priority** | normal | **Severity** | text | **Reproducibility** | always | | **Platform** | frama-c-Neon-20140301+dev-stance | **OS** | - | **OS Version** | xubuntu-cfe13.10 | | **Product Version** | - | **Target Version** | - | **Fixed in Version** | - | ### Description : Running "frama-c -wp -wp-rte 192.cpp" on the attached program verifies all obligations, thus showing that Frama-C assumes that no return value optimization (RVO) is done (the copy constructor "X()" from line 13 is called once for the "return" in line 21, and a second time for the initialization in line 25; as a result, the digit "2" is appended to variable "s" twice). I suggest that Frama-C prints a warning that it assumes that no RVO is done. The g++ compiler doesn't do this; however, Frama-C/Wp users are expected to be far more interested in semantic details than g++ users are. As an alternative, Frama-C's handling of RVO issues should eventually be explained in the manual. ## Attachments - [192.cpp](/uploads/315524f9cdd77995005dd6b3cf7d4c6e/192.cpp)