The ACSL implementation (Version 1.11 Implementation in Aluminium-20160501) lists \NearestEven as a rounding mode (page 23). However, it doesn't appear to be still available at runtime. When I ran the following code:
/*# requires 0x1p-967 <= C <= 0x1p970;
# ensures \result == \round_double(\NearestEven, (x+y)/2) ;
# */
double average(double C, double x, double y) {
if (C <= abs(x))
return x/2+y/2;
else
return (x+y)/2;
}
using the following command: frama-c -wp -wp-rte -wp-prover coq avg.c, I get: [wp] user error: Builtin \NearestEven not defined. None of the other rounding modes was available either.
Any suggestions?
The manual you refer to indicates what is supported by Frama-C's kernel. This does not imply that all plugins (or even any plugin) know how to deal with such a construction. In your particular case, WP indeed does not support \NearestEven.
With -wp-model +float, you might be able to work on a goal such as \result == (double)((x+y)/2), which will very probably use nearest even for the rounding involved by the cast to double (but I have to admit that the paragraph on Float arithmetic model in WP's manual is a bit succinct). This will of course not work if you want to use another rounding mode, for which I think only the Jessie plugin, if there is a version compatible with Aluminium somewhere, will be able to do something.
Note that for handling such proofs, you'll need to resort to Gappa and/or Coq. The prover used in WP by default (Alt-Ergo) is unlikely to discharge much proof obligations related to floating-point computations.
Related
I am in the process of finishing a package I've been working on. All checks look good and it compiles without problems on my computer. win-builder has no problems with the package as well. As further check, I've tried to install from source on the computer of a colleague and it fails. The problem comes from a Rcpp function that I've taken from a StackOverflow thread on vector powers in Rcpp:
NumericVector vecpow(const NumericVector base, const NumericVector exp) {
NumericVector out(base.size());
std::transform(base.begin(), base.end(),
exp.begin(), out.begin(), ::pow);
return out;
}
This compiles and works fine for me, but throws an error for my colleague when installing, involving
error: no matching function function for call to 'transform'
and
candidate function template not viable: requires 4 arguments, but 5 were provided.
I can reproduce the error for instance by replacing ::pow in the original code by pow. I'm on Windows 8.1, my colleague is on Mac. The colleague maintains his own packages involving extensive amounts of Rcpp code and usually has no problems with compiling.
I assume that this might be a compiler problem. The original thread has some alternative code involving C++11 (thread is already five years old), so in principle, I could replace the problematic code using alternatives. However, as I'm not very experienced with this, this would be trial and error. My question is: Is there a simple reason why this error pops up? And how can I modify my code in order to be sure that the package will be installable and usable for most users?
the error is caused because the compiler can't match the std::pow function as binary operation (this may be due to the fact that it has at least two overloads and the compiler can't guess the types float/double) giving rise to the following note :
note: candidate template ignored: couldn't infer template argument '_BinaryOperation'
And then it falls back to the unary std::transform which only has 4 arguments pushing the second note:
note: candidate function template not viable: requires 4 arguments, but 5 were provided
Compilation stops as it hasn't found a valid std::transform to apply to the specified arguments.
Switching from pow to powf stops this issue as the compiler doesn't have to resolve any overloads, however precision might be lost due to this change :
Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector vecpow(const NumericVector base, const NumericVector exp) {
NumericVector out(base.size());
std::transform(base.begin(), base.end(),
exp.begin(), out.begin(), ::powf);
return out;
}
") -> pow
pow(1:5,5:1)
[1] 1 16 27 16 5
Another work around would be to use static cast i.e replace ::pow with static_cast<double(*)(double, double)>(::pow) to tell the compiler to use the double overload of pow
I'm looking for WP options/model that could allow me to prove basic C memory manipulations like :
memcpy : I've tried to prove this simple code :
struct header_src{
char t1;
char t2;
char t3;
char t4;
};
struct header_dest{
short t1;
short t2;
};
/*# requires 0<=n<=UINT_MAX;
# requires \valid(dest);
# requires \valid_read(src);
# assigns (dest)[0..n-1] \from (src)[0..n-1];
# assigns \result \from dest;
# ensures dest[0..n] == src[0..n];
# ensures \result == dest;
*/
void* Frama_C_memcpy(char *dest, const char *src, uint32_t n);
int main(void)
{
struct header_src p_header_src;
struct header_dest p_header_dest;
p_header_src.t1 = 'e';
p_header_src.t2 = 'b';
p_header_src.t3 = 'c';
p_header_src.t4 = 'd';
p_header_dest.t1 = 0x0000;
p_header_dest.t2 = 0x0000;
//# assert \valid(&p_header_dest);
Frama_C_memcpy((char*)&p_header_dest, (char*)&p_header_src, sizeof(struct header_src));
//# assert p_header_dest.t1 == 0x6265;
//# assert p_header_dest.t2 == 0x6463;
}
but the two last assert weren't verified by WP (with default prover Alt-Ergo). It can be proved thanks to Value analysis, but I mostly want to be able to prove the code not using abstract interpretation.
Cast pointer to int : Since I'm programming embedded code, I want to be able to specify something like:
#define MEMORY_ADDR 0x08000000
#define SOME_SIZE 10
struct some_struct {
uint8_t field1[SOME_SIZE];
uint32_t field2[SOME_SIZE];
}
// [...]
// some function body {
struct some_struct *p = (some_struct*)MEMORY_ADDR;
if(p == NULL) {
// Handle error
} else {
// Do something
}
// } body end
I've looked a little bit at WP's documentation and it seems that the version of frama-c that I use (Magnesium-20151002) has several memory model (Hoare, Typed , +cast, +ref, ...) but none of the given example were proved with any of the model above. It is explicitly said in the documentation that Typed model does not handle pointer-to-int casts. I've a lot of trouble to understand what's really going on under the hood with each wp-model. It would really help me if I was able to verify at least post-conditions of the memcpy function. Plus, I have seen this issue about void pointer that apparently are not very well handled by WP at least in the Magnesium version. I didn't tried another version of frama-c yet, but I think that newer version handle void pointer in a better way.
Thank you very much in advance for your suggestions !
memcpy
Reasoning about the result of memcpy (or Frama_C_memcpy) is out of range of the current WP plugin. The only memory model that would work in your case is Bytes (page 13 of the manual for Chlorine), but it is not implemented.
Independently, please note that your postcondition from Frama_C_memcpy is not what you want here. You are asserting the equality of the sets dest[0..n] and src[0..n]. First, you should stop at n-1. Second, and more importantly, this is far too weak, and is in fact not sufficient to prove the two assertions in the caller. What you want is a quantification on all bytes. See e.g. the predicate memcmp in Frama-C's stdlib, or the variant \forall int i; 0 <= i < n -> dest[i] == src[i];
By the way, this postcondition holds only if dest and src are properly separated, which your function does not require. Otherwise, you should write dest[i] == \at (src[i], Pre). And your requires are also too weak for another reason, as you only require the first character to be valid, not the n first ones.
Cast pointer to int
Basically, all current models implemented in WP are unable to reason on codes in which the memory is accessed with multiple incompatible types (through the use of unions or pointer casts). In some cases, such as Typed, the cast is detected syntactically, and a warning is issued to warn that the code cannot be analyzed. The Typed+Cast model is a variant of Typed in which some casts are accepted. The analysis is correct only if the pointer is re-cast into its original type before being used. The idea is to allow using some libc functions that require a cast to void*, but not much more.
Your example is again a bit different, because it is likely that MEMORY_ADDR is always addressed with type some_stuct. Would it be acceptable to change the code slightly, and change your function as taking a pointer to this type? This way, you would "hide" the cast to MEMORY_ADDR inside a function that would remain unproven.
I tried this example in the latest version of Frama-C (of course the format is modified a little bit).
for the memcpy case
Assertion 2 fails but assertion 3 is successfully proved (basically because the failure of assertion 2 leads to a False assumption, which proves everything).
So in fact both assertion cannot be proved, same as your problem.
This conclusion is sound because the memory models used in the wp plugin (as far as I know) has no assumption on the relation between fields in a struct, i.e. in header_src the first two fields are 8 bit chars, but they may not be nestedly organized in the physical memory like char[2]. Instead, there may be paddings between them (refer to wiki for detailed description). So when you try to copy bits in such a struct to another struct, Frama-C becomes completely confused and has no idea what you are doing.
As far as I am concerned, Frama-C does not support any approach to precisely control the memory layout, e.g. gcc's PACKED which forces the compiler to remove paddings.
I am facing the same problem, and the (not elegant at all) solution is, use arrays instead. Arrays are always nested, so if you try to copy a char[4] to a short[2], I think the assertion can be proved.
for the Cast pointer to int case
With memory model Typed+cast, the current version I am using (Chlorine-20180501) supports casting between pointers and uint64_t. You may want to try this version.
Moreover, it is strongly suggested to call Z3 and CVC4 through why3, whose performance is certainly better than Alt-Ergo.
I'm getting assertions that don't make sense to me.
Code:
struct s {
int pred;
};
/*# assigns \result \from \nothing;
ensures \valid(\result);
*/
struct s *get(void);
int main(void)
{
return !get()->pred;
}
Frama-C output:
$ frama-c -val frama-ptr.c
[...]
frama-ptr.c:12:[kernel] warning: pointer comparison.
assert \pointer_comparable((void *)0, (void *)tmp->pred);
(tmp from get())
Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug in Frama-C?
This is not really a bug, although this behavior is not really satisfactory either. I recommend that you observe the analysis in the GUI (frama-c-gui -val frama-ptr.c), in particular the value of tmp->pred at line 12 in the Values tab.
Value before:
∈
{{ garbled mix of &{alloced_return_get}
(origin: Library function {c/ptrcmp.c:12}) }}
This is a very imprecise value, that has been generated because the return value of function get is a pointer. The Eva plugin generates a dummy variable (alloced_return_get), and fills it with dummy contents (garbled mix of &{alloced_return_get}). Even though the field pred is an integer, the analyzer assumes that (imprecise) pointers can also be present. This is why an alarm for pointer comparison is emitted.
There are at least two ways to avoid this:
use option -val-warn-undefined-pointer-comparison pointer, so that pointer comparison alarms are emitted only on comparisons involving lvalues with pointer type. The contents of the field pred will remain imprecise, though.
add a proper body to function get, possibly written using malloc, so that the field pred receives a more accurate value.
On a more general note, the Eva/Value plugin requires precise specifications for functions without a body; see section 7.2 of the manual. For functions that return pointers, you won't be able to write satisfactory specifications: you need to write allocates clauses, and those are currently not handled by Eva/Value. Thus, I suggest that you write a body for get.
I have the following problem when analyzing if-conditions with my plugin. When I analyze code like
if ((a && b) || c)
Frama-C creates code like this:
if (a) {
if (b){
goto _LOR;
}
else{
goto _LAND;
}
}
else{
_LAND: ;
if (c) {
_LOR: //....
For my analysis, I want to get the control-flow without the conditions split up, so that one statement remains. I want this, because by splitting up the conditional, the reaching of _LOR is dependent on the or-part only.
Example: creating the CFG as in the viewcfg plugin of the developer guide leads to this:
a=(a+b)+c can be reached in the then and the else-path of if a, which I cancel out in my plugin in the block-statement (so that after a "simple" if, the statement is not dependent on the condition anymore).
Is there a possibility to block the splitting of the if, by a command-line argument or something like that?
An undocumented and unsupported solution exists. Before compiling Frama-C, in function initCIL of cil.ml, change
theMachine.useLogicalOperators <- false (* do not use lazy LAND and LOR *);
into
theMachine.useLogicalOperators <- true;
The normalization will use logical || and && operators instead of gotos.
Please note that this is unsupported for a good reason. The Frama-C plugins packaged with the kernel expect an AST in which those operators are not used, so they will probably crash or do something unsound on your program. Use at your own risk!
How can I make use of named constants in ACSL specifications? These constants are either Macros (#define MY_CONST ...) or constant declarations (const int MY_CONST ...). The former does not work since the macros are not expanded by the preprocessor (ACSL specs are C comments), the latter does not because the constants are treated as variables so that some proofs fail. The specification works fine if I replace the named constants with the actual numbers.
Does anyone have a good idea to handle named constants?
Thanks in advance
In order to expand macros in ACSL specification, you can use the -pp-annot option.
I could resolve the problem with assistance of Pascal Cuoq. It is actually not a problem with frama-c but with gcc. One needs the -fpreprocessed compiler option. My complete command is now:
frama-c -cpp-extra-args="-I `frama-c -print-share-path`/libc" -cpp-extra-args="-nostdinc" -cpp-extra-args="-fpreprocessed </path/to/stdc-predef.h>" -wp -wp-rte -pp-annot myfile.c