I'd like to know if it's possible to do some kind of forward conditioned slicing with Frama-C and I'm playing with some examples to understand how one could achieve this.
I've got this simple example which seems to result in an imprecise slice and I can't understand why. Here is the function I'd like to slice :
int f(int a){
int x;
if(a == 0)
x = 0;
else if(a != 0)
x = 1;
return x;
}
If I use this specification :
/*@ requires a == 0;
@ ensures \old(a) == a;
@ ensures \result == 0;
*/
then Frama-C returns the following slice (which is precise), using "f -slice-return" criterion and f as entry point :
/*@ ensures \result ≡ 0; */
int f(void){
int x;
x = 0;
return x;
}
But when using this specification :
/*@ requires a != 0;
@ ensures \old(a) == a;
@ ensures \result == 1;
*/
then all instructions (& annotations) remain (when I was waiting for this slice to be returned :
/*@ ensures \result ≡ 1; */
int f(void){
int x;
x = 1;
return x;
}
)
In the last case, is the slice imprecise? In this case, what could be the cause?
Regards,
Romain
Edit : I wrote "else if(a != 0) ..." but the problem remains with "else ..."
This has no relevance whatsoever with your main question, but your
ensures a == \old(a)
clause is not doing what you expect. If you pretty-print your source code with option-print
, you will see it has been silently transformed intoensures \old(a) == \old(a)
.The ACSL language does not permit referring about the value of formal variables in the post-state, mostly because this is meaningless from the point of view of the caller. (The stack frame of the callee is popped after the call terminates.)
In Frama-C, the slicing plug-in relies on the result of a preliminary static analysis plug-in called the value analysis.
This value analysis can represent the values for variable
a
whena == 0
(the set of values is in this case{ 0 }
) but has a hard time to represent the values fora
when it is known thata != 0
. In the latter case, ifa
is not already known to be positive or negative, the value analysis plug-in needs to approximate the set of values fora
. Ifa
was known to be positive, for instance if it was anunsigned int
, then the nonzero values could be represented as an interval, but the value analysis plug-in cannot represent “all values of typeint
except 0”.If you are willing to change the pre-condition, you can write it in a form that is more easily understood by the value analysis plug-in (together with value analysis option
-slevel
):