# 5.6. Assertion Pragmas¶

SPARK contains features for directing formal verification with
GNATprove. These features may also be used by other tools, in particular the
GNAT compiler. Assertion pragmas are refinements of pragma `Assert`

defined in Ada. For all assertion pragmas, an exception `Assertion_Error`

is
raised at run time when the property asserted does not hold, if the program was
compiled with assertions. The real difference between assertion pragmas is how
they are used by GNATprove during proof.

## 5.6.1. Pragma `Assert`

¶

[Ada 2005]

Pragma `Assert`

is the simplest assertion pragma. GNATprove checks that the
property asserted holds, and uses the information that it holds for analyzing
code that follows. For example, consider two assertions of the same property
`X > 0`

in procedure `Assert_Twice`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | ```
procedure Assert_Twice (X : Integer) with
SPARK_Mode
is
begin
pragma Assert (X > 0);
pragma Assert (X > 0);
end Assert_Twice;
``` |

As expected, the first assertion on line 5 is not provable in absence of a
suitable precondition for `Assert_Twice`

, but GNATprove proves that it
holds the second time the property is asserted on line 6:

```
assert_twice.adb:5:19: medium: assertion might fail, cannot prove X > 0
5 | pragma Assert (X > 0);
| ^ here
possible fix: subprogram at line 1 should mention X in a precondition
1 |procedure Assert_Twice (X : Integer) with
|^ here
assert_twice.adb:6:19: info: assertion proved
```

GNATprove considers that an execution of `Assert_Twice`

with `X <= 0`

stops at the first assertion that fails. Thus `X > 0`

when execution reaches
the second assertion. This is true if assertions are executed at run time, but
not if assertions are discarded during compilation. In the latter case,
unproved assertions should be inspected carefully to ensure that the property
asserted will indeed hold at run time. This is true of all assertion pragmas,
which GNATprove analyzes like pragma `Assert`

in that respect.

## 5.6.2. Pragma `Assertion_Policy`

¶

[Ada 2005/Ada 2012]

Assertions can be enabled either globally or locally. Here, *assertions* denote
either Assertion Pragmas of all kinds (among which Pragma Assert)
or functional contracts of all kinds (among which Preconditions and
Postconditions).

By default, assertions are ignored in compilation, and can be enabled globally
by using the compilation switch `-gnata`

. They can be enabled locally by
using pragma `Assertion_Policy`

in the program, or globally if the pragma is
put in a configuration file. They can be enabled for all kinds of assertions or
specific ones only by using the version of pragma `Assertion_Policy`

that
takes named associations which was introduced in Ada 2012.

When used with the standard policies `Check`

(for enabling assertions) or
`Ignore`

(for ignoring assertions), pragma `Assertion_Policy`

has no
effect on GNATprove. GNATprove takes all assertions into account, whatever
the assertion policy in effect at the point of the assertion. For example,
consider a code with some assertions enabled and some ignored:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | ```
pragma Assertion_Policy (Pre => Check, Post => Ignore);
procedure Assert_Enabled (X : in out Integer) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => X > 0, -- executed at run time
Post => X > 2 -- ignored at run time
is
pragma Assertion_Policy (Assert => Check);
pragma Assert (X >= 0); -- executed at run time
pragma Assertion_Policy (Assert => Ignore);
pragma Assert (X >= 0); -- ignored at run time
begin
X := X - 1;
end Assert_Enabled;
``` |

Although the postcondition and the second assertion are not executed at run time, GNATprove analyzes them and issues corresponding messages:

```
assert_enabled.adb:6:11: medium: postcondition might fail, cannot prove X > 2
6 | Post => X > 2 -- ignored at run time
| ^ here
e.g. when X = 0
assert_enabled.adb:9:19: info: assertion proved
assert_enabled.adb:12:19: info: assertion proved
assert_enabled.adb:14:11: info: overflow check proved
```

On the contrary, when used with the GNAT-specific policy `Disable`

, pragma
`Assertion_Policy`

causes the corresponding assertions to be skipped both
during execution and analysis with GNATprove. For example, consider the same
code as above where policy `Ignore`

is replaced with policy `Disable`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | ```
pragma Assertion_Policy (Pre => Check, Post => Disable);
procedure Assert_Disabled (X : in out Integer) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => X > 0, -- executed at run time
Post => X > 2 -- ignored at compile time and in analysis
is
pragma Assertion_Policy (Assert => Check);
pragma Assert (X >= 0); -- executed at run time
pragma Assertion_Policy (Assert => Disable);
pragma Assert (X >= 0); -- ignored at compile time and in analysis
begin
X := X - 1;
end Assert_Disabled;
``` |

On this program, GNATprove does not analyze the postcondition and the second assertion, and it does not issue corresponding messages:

```
assert_disabled.adb:9:19: info: assertion proved
assert_disabled.adb:14:11: info: overflow check proved
```

The policy of `Disable`

should thus be reserved for assertions that are not
compilable, typically because a given build environment does not define the
necessary entities.

## 5.6.3. Loop Invariants¶

[SPARK]

Pragma `Loop_Invariant`

is a special kind of assertion used in
loops. GNATprove performs two checks that ensure that the property asserted
holds at each iteration of the loop:

- loop invariant initialization: GNATprove checks that the property asserted holds during the first iteration of the loop.
- loop invariant preservation: GNATprove checks that the property asserted holds during an arbitrary iteration of the loop, assuming that it held in the previous iteration.

Each of these properties can be independently true or false. For example, in the following loop, the loop invariant is false during the first iteration and true in all remaining iterations:

6 7 8 9 10 | ```
Prop := False;
for J in 1 .. 10 loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Prop);
Prop := True;
end loop;
``` |

Thus, GNATprove checks that property 2 holds but not property 1:

```
simple_loops.adb:8:30: medium: loop invariant might fail in first iteration, cannot prove Prop
8 | pragma Loop_Invariant (Prop);
| ^ here
e.g. when Prop = False
simple_loops.adb:8:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
```

Conversely, in the following loop, the loop invariant is true during the first iteration and false in all remaining iterations:

12 13 14 15 16 | ```
Prop := True;
for J in 1 .. 10 loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Prop);
Prop := False;
end loop;
``` |

Thus, GNATprove checks that property 1 holds but not property 2:

```
simple_loops.adb:14:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
simple_loops.adb:14:30: medium: loop invariant might not be preserved by an arbitrary iteration, cannot prove Prop
14 | pragma Loop_Invariant (Prop);
| ^ here
e.g. when Prop = False
```

The following loop shows a case where the loop invariant holds both during the first iteration and all remaining iterations:

18 19 20 21 22 | ```
Prop := True;
for J in 1 .. 10 loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Prop);
Prop := Prop;
end loop;
``` |

GNATprove checks here that both properties 1 and 2 hold:

```
simple_loops.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
simple_loops.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
```

In general, it is not sufficient that a loop invariant is true for GNATprove to prove it. The loop invariant should also be inductive: it should be precise enough that GNATprove can check loop invariant preservation by assuming only that the loop invariant held during the last iteration. For example, the following loop is the same as the previous one, except the loop invariant is true but not inductive:

24 25 26 27 28 | ```
Prop := True;
for J in 1 .. 10 loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (if J > 1 then Prop);
Prop := Prop;
end loop;
``` |

GNATprove cannot check property 2 on that loop:

```
simple_loops.adb:26:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
simple_loops.adb:26:44: medium: loop invariant might not be preserved by an arbitrary iteration, cannot prove Prop
26 | pragma Loop_Invariant (if J > 1 then Prop);
| ^ here
e.g. when Prop = False
```

Note that using CodePeer static analysis allows here to fully prove the loop invariant, which is possible because CodePeer generates its own sound approximation of loop invariants (see Using CodePeer Static Analysis for details):

```
simple_loops_cdp.adb:26:30: info: loop invariant proved
```

Note also that not using an assertion (Pragma Assert) instead of a loop invariant also allows here to fully prove the corresponding property, by relying on Automatic Unrolling of Simple For-Loops:

```
simple_loops_unroll.adb:26:22: info: assertion proved
```

Returning to the case where neither automatic loop unrolling nor CodePeer are used, the reasoning of GNATprove for checking property 2 in that case can be summarized as follows:

- Let’s take iteration K of the loop, where K > 1 (not the first iteration).
- Let’s assume that the loop invariant held during iteration K-1, so we know that if K-1 > 1 then Prop holds.
- The previous assumption can be rewritten: if K > 2 then Prop.
- But all we know is that K > 1, so we cannot deduce Prop.

See How to Write Loop Invariants for further guidelines.

Pragma `Loop_Invariant`

may appear anywhere at the top level of a loop: it is
usually added at the start of the loop, but it may be more convenient in some
cases to add it at the end of the loop, or in the middle of the loop, in cases
where this simplifies the asserted property. In all cases, GNATprove checks
loop invariant preservation by reasoning on the virtual loop that starts and
ends at the loop invariant.

It is possible to use multiple loop invariants, which should be grouped
together without intervening statements or declarations. The resulting complete
loop invariant is the conjunction of individual ones. The benefits of writing
multiple loop invariants instead of a conjunction can be improved readability
and better provability (because GNATprove checks each pragma
`Loop_Invariant`

separately).

Finally, Attribute Loop_Entry and Delta Aggregates can be very useful to express complex loop invariants.

Note

Users that are already familiar with the notion of loop invariant in other proof systems should be aware that loop invariants in SPARK are slightly different from the usual ones. In SPARK, a loop invariant must hold when execution reaches the corresponding pragma inside the loop. Hence, it needs not hold when the loop is never entered, or when exiting the loop.

## 5.6.4. Loop Variants¶

[SPARK]

Pragma `Loop_Variant`

is a special kind of assertion used in
loops. GNATprove checks that the given scalar value decreases (or increases)
at each iteration of the loop. Because a scalar value is always bounded by its
type in Ada, it cannot decrease (or increase) at each iteration an infinite
number of times, thus one of two outcomes is possible:

- the loop exits, or
- a run-time error occurs.

Therefore, it is possible to prove the termination of loops in SPARK programs by proving both a loop variant for each plain-loop or while-loop (for-loops always terminate in Ada) and the absence of run-time errors.

For example, the while-loops in procedure `Terminating_Loops`

compute the
value of `X - X mod 3`

(or equivalently `X / 3 * 3`

) in variable `Y`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | ```
procedure Terminating_Loops (X : Natural) with
SPARK_Mode
is
Y : Natural;
begin
Y := 0;
while X - Y >= 3 loop
Y := Y + 3;
pragma Loop_Variant (Increases => Y);
end loop;
Y := 0;
while X - Y >= 3 loop
Y := Y + 3;
pragma Loop_Variant (Decreases => X - Y);
end loop;
end Terminating_Loops;
``` |

GNATprove is able to prove both loop variants, as well as absence of run-time errors in the subprogram, hence that loops terminate:

```
terminating_loops.adb:4:04: info: initialization of "Y" proved
terminating_loops.adb:7:12: info: overflow check proved
terminating_loops.adb:8:14: info: overflow check proved
terminating_loops.adb:9:28: info: loop variant proved
terminating_loops.adb:13:12: info: overflow check proved
terminating_loops.adb:14:14: info: overflow check proved
terminating_loops.adb:15:28: info: loop variant proved
terminating_loops.adb:15:43: info: overflow check proved
```

Pragma `Loop_Variant`

may appear anywhere a loop invariant appears. It is
also possible to use multiple loop variants, which should be grouped together
with loop invariants. A loop variant may be more complex than a single
decreasing (or increasing) value, and be given instead by a list of either
decreasing or increasing values (possibly a mix of both). In that case, the
order of the list defines the lexicographic order of progress. See SPARK RM
5.5.3 for details.

## 5.6.5. Pragma `Assume`

¶

[SPARK]

Pragma `Assume`

is a variant of Pragma Assert that does not require
GNATprove to check that the property holds. This is used to convey trustable
information to GNATprove, in particular properties about external objects
that GNATprove has no control upon. GNATprove uses the information that the
assumed property holds for analyzing code that follows. For example, consider
an assumption of the property `X > 0`

in procedure `Assume_Then_Assert`

,
followed by an assertion of the same property:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | ```
procedure Assume_Then_Assert (X : Integer) with
SPARK_Mode
is
begin
pragma Assume (X > 0);
pragma Assert (X > 0);
end Assume_Then_Assert;
``` |

As expected, GNATprove does not check the property on line 5, but used it to prove that the assertion holds on line 6:

```
assume_then_assert.adb:6:19: info: assertion proved
```

GNATprove considers that an execution of `Assume_Then_Assert`

with ```
X <=
0
```

stops at the assumption on line 5, and it does not issue a message in that
case because the user explicitly indicated that this case is not possible. Thus
`X > 0`

when execution reaches the assertion on line 6. This is true if
assertions (of which assumptions are a special kind) are executed at run time,
but not if assertions are discarded during compilation. In the latter case,
assumptions should be inspected carefully to ensure that the property assumed
will indeed hold at run time. This inspection may be facilitated by passing a
justification string as the second argument to pragma `Assume`

.

## 5.6.6. Pragma `Assert_And_Cut`

¶

[SPARK]

Pragma `Assert_And_Cut`

is a variant of Pragma Assert that allows
hiding some information to GNATprove. GNATprove checks that the property
asserted holds, and uses *only* the information that it holds for analyzing
code that follows. For example, consider two assertions of the same property
`X = 1`

in procedure `Forgetful_Assert`

, separated by a pragma
`Assert_And_Cut`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | ```
procedure Forgetful_Assert (X : out Integer) with
SPARK_Mode
is
begin
X := 1;
pragma Assert (X = 1);
pragma Assert_And_Cut (X > 0);
pragma Assert (X > 0);
pragma Assert (X = 1);
end Forgetful_Assert;
``` |

GNATprove proves that the assertion on line 7 holds, but it cannot prove that the same assertion on line 12 holds:

```
forgetful_assert.adb:1:29: info: initialization of "X" proved
forgetful_assert.adb:7:19: info: assertion proved
forgetful_assert.adb:9:27: info: assertion proved
forgetful_assert.adb:11:19: info: assertion proved
forgetful_assert.adb:12:19: medium: assertion might fail, cannot prove X = 1
12 | pragma Assert (X = 1);
| ^ here
e.g. when X = 2
```

GNATprove *forgets* the exact value of `X`

after line 9. All it knows is
the information given in pragma `Assert_And_Cut`

, here that `X > 0`

. And
indeed GNATprove proves that such an assertion holds on line 11. But it
cannot prove the assertion on line 12, and the counterexample displayed
mentions a possible value of 2 for `X`

, showing indeed that GNATprove
forgot its value of 1.

Pragma `Assert_And_Cut`

may be useful in two cases:

When the automatic provers are overwhelmed with information from the context, pragma

`Assert_And_Cut`

may be used to simplify this context, thus leading to more automatic proofs.When GNATprove is proving checks for each path through the subprogram (see switch

`--proof`

in Running GNATprove from the Command Line), and the number of paths is very large, pragma`Assert_And_Cut`

may be used to reduce the number of paths, thus leading to faster automatic proofs.For example, consider procedure

`P`

below, where all that is needed to prove that the code using`X`

is free from run-time errors is that`X`

is positive. Let’s assume that we are running GNATprove with switch`--proof=per_path`

so that a formula is generated for each execution path. Without the pragma, GNATprove considers all execution paths through`P`

, which may be many. With the pragma, GNATprove only considers the paths from the start of the procedure to the pragma, and the paths from the pragma to the end of the procedure, hence many fewer paths.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | ```
procedure P is
X : Integer;
begin
-- complex computation that sets X
pragma Assert_And_Cut (X > 0);
-- complex computation that uses X
end P;
``` |