ID0002043: **This issue was created automatically from Mantis Issue 2043. Further discussion may take place here.** --- | **Id** | **Project** | **Category** | **View** | **Due Date** | **Updated** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ID0002043 | Frama-Clang | Plug-in > clang | public | 2015-01-05 | 2015-02-15 | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Reporter** | Jochen | **Assigned To** | virgile | **Resolution** | open | | **Priority** | normal | **Severity** | minor | **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 426.cpp" produces the output: Now output intermediate result 426.cpp:5:[kernel] warning: found two contracts. Merging them [wp] Running WP plugin... The warning remains if (1) the contract in line 7 is activated, or (2) the contract in line 11 is deactivated. The warning disappears if (3) lines 4-5 are deleted, (4) line 8 is deleted, or (5) "char" is changed to "int" in line 13. Even if the warning is printed, the proof obligation for the constructor call in line 13 seems to be correct, viz.: (* ---------------------------------------------------------- *) (* --- Instance of 'Pre-condition (file 426.cpp, line 4) in '_ZN7complexIcEEC1vci'' in 'main' at call '_ZN7complexIcEEC1vci' (file 426.cpp, line 13) --- *) (* ---------------------------------------------------------- *) goal main_call__ZN7complexIcEEC1vci_pre: forall i : int. forall t : int farray. (i <= 6) -> linked(t) -> is_sint32(i) -> (1 = i) So it is not clear which contracts are merged. Possibly this is a revival of issue #1611. However, it could also indicate that the contract in line 4 is merged with the (empty) contract of the constructor in line 8 (since the warning disappears when line 8 is removed) - which would be wrong in general. ## Attachments - [426.cpp](/uploads/83b16ec11a724e4803101543fe3e06de/426.cpp)