# 7.9.2. Loop Examples¶

The examples in this section contain loops, and thus require in general that users write suitable Loop Invariants. We start by explaining the need for a loop invariant, and we continue with a description of the most common patterns of loops and their loop invariant. We summarize each pattern in a table of the following form:

Loop Pattern Loop Over Data Structure Proof Objective Establish property P. Loop Behavior Loops over the data structure and establishes P. Loop Invariant Property P is established for the part of the data structure looped over so far.

The examples in this section use the types defined in package `Loop_Types`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | ```
with Ada.Containers.Formal_Doubly_Linked_Lists;
with Ada.Containers.Formal_Vectors;
package Loop_Types
with SPARK_Mode
is
subtype Index_T is Positive range 1 .. 1000;
subtype Opt_Index_T is Natural range 0 .. 1000;
subtype Component_T is Natural;
type Arr_T is array (Index_T) of Component_T;
package Vectors is new Ada.Containers.Formal_Vectors (Index_T, Component_T);
subtype Vec_T is Vectors.Vector;
package Lists is new Ada.Containers.Formal_Doubly_Linked_Lists (Component_T);
subtype List_T is Lists.List;
end Loop_Types;
``` |

## 7.9.2.1. The Need for a Loop Invariant¶

Consider a simple procedure that increments its integer parameter `X`

a
number `N`

of times:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | ```
procedure Increment_Loop (X : in out Integer; N : Natural) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => X <= Integer'Last - N,
Post => X = X'Old + N
is
begin
for I in 1 .. N loop
X := X + 1;
end loop;
end Increment_Loop;
``` |

The precondition of `Increment_Loop`

ensures that there is no overflow when
incrementing `X`

in the loop, and its postcondition states that `X`

has
been incremented `N`

times. This contract is a generalization of the contract
given for a single increment in Increment. GNATprove does not manage
to prove either the absence of overflow or the postcondition of
`Increment_Loop`

:

```
increment_loop.adb:3:29: info: overflow check proved
increment_loop.adb:4:11: medium: postcondition might fail, cannot prove X = X'Old + N (e.g. when N = 1 and X = 0 and X'Old = 0)
increment_loop.adb:4:21: info: overflow check proved
increment_loop.adb:8:14: medium: overflow check might fail (e.g. when X = 2147483647)
```

As described in How to Write Loop Invariants, this is because variable
`X`

is modified in the loop, hence GNATprove knows nothing about it unless
it is stated in a loop invariant. If we add such a loop invariant that
describes precisely the value of `X`

in each iteration of the loop:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | ```
procedure Increment_Loop_Inv (X : in out Integer; N : Natural) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => X <= Integer'Last - N,
Post => X = X'Old + N
is
begin
for I in 1 .. N loop
X := X + 1;
pragma Loop_Invariant (X = X'Loop_Entry + I);
end loop;
end Increment_Loop_Inv;
``` |

then GNATprove proves both the absence of overflow and the postcondition of
`Increment_Loop_Inv`

:

```
increment_loop_inv.adb:3:29: info: overflow check proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:4:11: info: postcondition proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:4:21: info: overflow check proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:8:14: info: overflow check proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:9:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:9:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
increment_loop_inv.adb:9:47: info: overflow check proved
```

Fortunately, many loops fall into some broad categories for which the loop invariant is known. In the following sections, we describe these common patterns of loops and their loop invariant, which involve in general iterating over the content of a collection (either an array or a container from the Formal Containers Library).

## 7.9.2.2. Initialization Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to initialize every element of the collection to a given value:

Loop Pattern Separate Initialization of Each Element Proof Objective Every element of the collection has a specific value. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection and initializes every element of the collection. Loop Invariant Every element initialized so far has its specific value.

In the simplest case, every element is assigned the same value. For example, in
procedure `Init_Arr_Zero`

below, value zero is assigned to every element of
array `A`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Init_Arr_Zero (A : out Arr_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = 0)
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
A(J) := 0;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = 0);
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, False_Positive, """A"" might not be initialized",
"Part of array up to index J is initialized at this point");
end loop;
end Init_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have the value zero. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to
prove the postcondition of `Init_Arr_Zero`

, namely that all elements of the
array have value zero:

```
init_arr_zero.adb:3:26: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
init_arr_zero.adb:5:36: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
init_arr_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
init_arr_zero.adb:10:59: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_zero.adb:10:61: info: index check proved
```

Note

Pragma Annotate is used in `Init_Arr_Zero`

to justify a message issued by
flow analysis, about the possible read of uninitialized value `A(K)`

in
the loop invariant. Indeed, flow analysis is not currently able to infer
that all elements up to the loop index `J`

have been initialized, hence it
issues a message that `"A" might not be initialized`

. For more details,
see section on Justifying Check Messages.

Consider now a variant of the same initialization loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
procedure Init_Vec_Zero (V : in out Vec_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, J) = 0)
is
begin
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
Replace_Element (V, J, 0);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) = 0);
end loop;
end Init_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like before, the loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current
loop index `J`

have the value zero. Another loop invariant is needed here to
express that the length of the vector does not change in the loop: as variable
`V`

is modified in the loop, GNATprove does not know its length stays the
same (for example, calling procedure `Append`

or `Delete_Last`

would change
this length) unless the user says so in the loop invariant. This is different
from arrays whose length cannot change. With this loop invariant, GNATprove
is able to prove the postcondition of `Init_Vec_Zero`

, namely that all
elements of the vector have value zero:

```
init_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
init_vec_zero.adb:5:62: info: precondition proved
init_vec_zero.adb:5:74: info: range check proved
init_vec_zero.adb:9:07: info: precondition proved
init_vec_zero.adb:9:27: info: range check proved
init_vec_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
init_vec_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
init_vec_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
init_vec_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
init_vec_zero.adb:11:67: info: precondition proved
init_vec_zero.adb:11:79: info: range check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same initialization loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Init_List_Zero (L : in out List_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all E of L => E = 0)
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) = 0);
Replace_Element (L, Cu, 0);
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
end Init_List_Zero;
``` |

Contrary to arrays and vectors, lists are not indexed. Instead, a cursor can be
defined to iterate over the list. The loop invariant expresses that all
elements up to the current cursor `Cu`

have the value zero. To access the
element stored at a given position in a list, we use the function `Model`

which computes the mathematical sequence of the elements stored in the list.
The position of a cursor in this sequence is retrieved using the `Positions`

function. Contrary to the
case of vectors, no loop invariant is needed to express that the length of the
list does not change in the loop, because the postcondition remains provable
here even if the length of the list changes. With this loop invariant,
GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Init_List_Zero`

, namely
that all elements of the list have value zero:

```
init_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:6:12: info: precondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:10:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
init_list_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
init_list_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
init_list_zero.adb:11:49: info: precondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:11:70: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
init_list_zero.adb:12:32: info: precondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:13:07: info: precondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:13:27: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
init_list_zero.adb:14:07: info: precondition proved
init_list_zero.adb:14:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

The case of sets and maps is similar to the case of lists.

Note

The parameter of `Init_Vec_Zero`

and `Init_List_Zero`

is an in out
parameter. This is because some components of the vector/list parameter are
preserved by the initialization procedure (in particular the component
corresponding to its length). This is different from `Init_Arr_Zero`

which
takes an out parameter, as all components of the array are initialized by
the procedure (the bounds of an array are not modifiable, hence considered
separately from the parameter mode).

Consider now a case where the value assigned to each element is not the
same. For example, in procedure `Init_Arr_Index`

below, each element of array
`A`

is assigned the value of its index:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Init_Arr_Index (A : out Arr_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = J)
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
A(J) := J;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = K);
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, False_Positive, """A"" might not be initialized",
"Part of array up to index J is initialized at this point");
end loop;
end Init_Arr_Index;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have the value of their index. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is
able to prove the postcondition of `Init_Arr_Index`

, namely that all elements
of the array have the value of their index:

```
init_arr_index.adb:3:27: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_index.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
init_arr_index.adb:5:36: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_index.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
init_arr_index.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
init_arr_index.adb:10:59: info: initialization of "A" proved
init_arr_index.adb:10:61: info: index check proved
```

Similarly, variants of `Init_Vec_Zero`

and `Init_List_Zero`

that assign a
different value to each element of the collection would be proved by
GNATprove.

## 7.9.2.3. Mapping Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to map every element of the collection to a new value:

Loop Pattern Separate Modification of Each Element Proof Objective Every element of the collection has an updated value. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection and updates every element of the collection. Loop Invariant Every element updated so far has its specific value.

In the simplest case, every element is assigned a new value based only on its
initial value. For example, in procedure `Map_Arr_Incr`

below, every element
of array `A`

is incremented by one:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Map_Arr_Incr (A : in out Arr_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) /= Component_T'Last),
Post => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = A'Old(J) + 1)
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
A(J) := A(J) + 1;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = A'Loop_Entry(K) + 1);
-- The following loop invariant is generated automatically by GNATprove:
-- pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in J + 1 .. A'Last => A(K) = A'Loop_Entry(K));
end loop;
end Map_Arr_Incr;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have been incremented (using Attribute Loop_Entry). With this loop
invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Map_Arr_Incr`

,
namely that all elements of the array have been incremented:

```
map_arr_incr.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
map_arr_incr.adb:6:52: info: overflow check proved
map_arr_incr.adb:10:20: info: overflow check proved
map_arr_incr.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_arr_incr.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_arr_incr.adb:11:61: info: index check proved
map_arr_incr.adb:11:79: info: index check proved
map_arr_incr.adb:11:82: info: overflow check proved
```

Note that the commented loop invariant expressing that other elements have not been modified is not needed, as it is an example of Automatically Generated Loop Invariants.

Consider now a variant of the same initialization loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | ```
pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old (Allow);
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
use Loop_Types.Vectors.Formal_Model;
procedure Map_Vec_Incr (V : in out Vec_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => (for all I in 1 .. Last_Index (V) =>
Element (V, I) /= Component_T'Last),
Post => Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Old
and then (for all I in 1 .. Last_Index (V) =>
Element (V, I) = Element (Model (V)'Old, I) + 1)
is
begin
for J in 1 .. Last_Index (V) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in 1 .. J - 1 =>
Element (V, I) = Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I) + 1);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in J .. Last_Index (V) =>
Element (V, I) = Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I));
Replace_Element (V, J, Element (V, J) + 1);
end loop;
end Map_Vec_Incr;
``` |

Like before, we need an additionnal loop invariant to state that the length of
the vector is not modified by the loop. The other two invariants are direct
translations of those used for the loop over arrays: the first one expresses
that all elements up to the current loop index `J`

have been incremented, and
the second one expresses that other elements have not been modified.
Note that, as formal vectors are limited, we need to use the `Model`

function
of vectors to express the set of elements contained in the vector before the
loop (using attributes `Loop_Entry`

and `Old`

).
With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Map_Vec_Incr`

, namely that all elements of the vector have been incremented:

```
map_vec_incr.adb:8:16: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:8:28: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:9:11: info: postcondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:11:18: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:11:30: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:11:35: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:11:59: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:11:62: info: overflow check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_vec_incr.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_vec_incr.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_vec_incr.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_vec_incr.adb:18:12: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:18:24: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:18:29: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:18:60: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:18:63: info: overflow check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:20:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_vec_incr.adb:20:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_vec_incr.adb:21:12: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:21:24: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:21:29: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:21:60: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:22:07: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:22:27: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:22:30: info: precondition proved
map_vec_incr.adb:22:42: info: range check proved
map_vec_incr.adb:22:45: info: overflow check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same initialization loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Map_List_Incr (L : in out List_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => (for all E of L => E /= Component_T'Last),
Post => Length (L) = Length (L)'Old
and then (for all I in 1 .. Length (L) =>
Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Old), I) + 1)
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Length (L) = Length (L)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I) + 1);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) .. Length (L) =>
Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I));
Replace_Element (L, Cu, Element (L, Cu) + 1);
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
end Map_List_Incr;
``` |

Like before, we need to use a cursor to iterate over the list. The loop
invariants express that all elements up to the current loop index `J`

have
been incremented and that other elements have not been modified. Note that it is
necessary to state here that the length of the list is not modified during the
loop. It is because the length is used to bound the quantification over the
elements of the list both in the invariant and in the postcondition. With this
loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Map_List_Incr`

, namely that all elements of the list have been incremented:

```
map_list_incr.adb:6:12: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:7:11: info: postcondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:9:18: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:9:43: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:9:70: info: overflow check proved
map_list_incr.adb:13:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
map_list_incr.adb:14:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_list_incr.adb:14:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_list_incr.adb:16:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_list_incr.adb:16:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_list_incr.adb:16:29: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:16:50: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
map_list_incr.adb:17:12: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:17:37: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:17:71: info: overflow check proved
map_list_incr.adb:19:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
map_list_incr.adb:19:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
map_list_incr.adb:19:24: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:19:45: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
map_list_incr.adb:20:12: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:20:32: info: range check proved
map_list_incr.adb:20:37: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:20:68: info: range check proved
map_list_incr.adb:21:07: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:21:27: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
map_list_incr.adb:21:31: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:21:43: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
map_list_incr.adb:21:47: info: overflow check proved
map_list_incr.adb:22:07: info: precondition proved
map_list_incr.adb:22:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

## 7.9.2.4. Validation Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to validate that every element of the collection has a valid value. The most common pattern is to exit or return from the loop if an invalid value if encountered:

Loop Pattern Sequence Validation with Early Exit Proof Objective Determine (flag) if there are any invalid elements in a given collection. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection and exits/returns if an invalid element is encountered. Loop Invariant Every element encountered so far is valid.

Consider a procedure `Validate_Arr_Zero`

that checks that all elements of an
array `A`

have value zero:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Validate_Arr_Zero (A : Arr_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = 0)
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) /= 0 then
Success := False;
return;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = 0);
end loop;
Success := True;
end Validate_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have value zero. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove
the postcondition of `Validate_Arr_Zero`

, namely that output parameter
`Success`

is True if-and-only-if all elements of the array have value zero:

```
validate_arr_zero.adb:3:41: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
validate_arr_zero.adb:13:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
validate_arr_zero.adb:13:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
validate_arr_zero.adb:13:61: info: index check proved
```

Consider now a variant of the same validation loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
procedure Validate_Vec_Zero (V : Vec_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for all J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, J) = 0)
is
begin
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
if Element (V, J) /= 0 then
Success := False;
return;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) = 0);
end loop;
Success := True;
end Validate_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like before, the loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current
loop index `J`

have the value zero. Since variable `V`

is not modified in
the loop, no additional loop invariant is needed here for GNATprove to know
that its length stays the same (this is different from the case of
`Init_Vec_Zero`

seen previously). With this loop invariant, GNATprove is
able to prove the postcondition of `Validate_Vec_Zero`

, namely that output
parameter `Success`

is True if-and-only-if all elements of the vector have
value zero:

```
validate_vec_zero.adb:3:41: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:5:72: info: precondition proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:5:84: info: range check proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:9:10: info: precondition proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:9:22: info: range check proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:13:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:13:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:13:67: info: precondition proved
validate_vec_zero.adb:13:79: info: range check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same validation loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Validate_List_Zero (L : List_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for all E of L => E = 0)
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) = 0);
if Element (L, Cu) /= 0 then
Success := False;
return;
end if;
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
Success := True;
end Validate_List_Zero;
``` |

Like in the case of `Init_List_Zero`

seen previously, we need to define a
cursor here to iterate over the list. The loop invariant expresses that all
elements up to the current cursor `Cu`

have the value zero. With this loop
invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Validate_List_Zero`

, namely that output parameter `Success`

is True
if-and-only-if all elements of the list have value zero:

```
validate_list_zero.adb:4:43: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:6:22: info: precondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:10:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
validate_list_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
validate_list_zero.adb:11:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
validate_list_zero.adb:11:49: info: precondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:11:70: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
validate_list_zero.adb:12:32: info: precondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:13:10: info: precondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:13:22: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
validate_list_zero.adb:17:07: info: precondition proved
validate_list_zero.adb:17:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

The case of sets and maps is similar to the case of lists.

A variant of the previous validation pattern is to continue validating elements even after an invalid value has been encountered, which allows for example logging all invalid values:

Loop Pattern Sequence Validation that Validates Entire Collection Proof Objective Determine (flag) if there are any invalid elements in a given collection. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection. If an invalid element is encountered, flag this, but keep validating (typically logging every invalidity) for the entire collection. Loop Invariant If invalidity is not flagged, every element encountered so far is valid.

Consider a variant of `Validate_Arr_Zero`

that keeps validating elements of
the array after a non-zero element has been encountered:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Validate_Full_Arr_Zero (A : Arr_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = 0)
is
begin
Success := True;
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) /= 0 then
Success := False;
-- perform some logging here instead of returning
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (Success = (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = 0));
end loop;
end Validate_Full_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant has been modified to state that all elements up to the
current loop index J have value zero if-and-only-if the output parameter
Success is True. This in turn requires to move the assignment of `Success`

before the loop. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the
postcondition of `Validate_Full_Arr_Zero`

, which is the same as the
postcondition of `Validate_Arr_Zero`

, namely that output parameter
`Success`

is True if-and-only-if all elements of the array have value zero:

```
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:3:46: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: initialization of "Success" proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
validate_full_arr_zero.adb:15:72: info: index check proved
```

Similarly, variants of `Validate_Vec_Zero`

and `Validate_List_Zero`

that
keep validating elements of the collection after a non-zero element has been
encountered would be proved by GNATprove.

## 7.9.2.5. Counting Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to count the number of elements of the collection that satisfy a given criterion:

Loop Pattern Count Elements Satisfying Criterion Proof Objective Count elements that satisfy a given criterion. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection. Increments a counter each time the value of an element satisfies the criterion. Loop Invariant The value of the counter is either 0 when no element encountered so far satisfies the criterion, or a positive number bounded by the current iteration of the loop otherwise.

Consider a procedure `Count_Arr_Zero`

that counts elements with value zero
in array `A`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Count_Arr_Zero (A : Arr_T; Counter : out Natural) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (Counter in 0 .. A'Length) and then
((Counter = 0) = (for all K in A'Range => A(K) /= 0))
is
begin
Counter := 0;
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) = 0 then
Counter := Counter + 1;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (Counter in 0 .. J);
pragma Loop_Invariant ((Counter = 0) = (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) /= 0));
end loop;
end Count_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that the value of `Counter`

is a natural number
bounded by the current loop index `J`

, and that `Counter`

is equal to zero
exactly when all elements up to the current loop index have a non-zero value.
With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Count_Arr_Zero`

, namely that output parameter `Counter`

is a natural
number bounded by the length of the array `A`

, and that `Counter`

is equal
to zero exactly when all elements in `A`

have a non-zero value:

```
count_arr_zero.adb:3:38: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
count_arr_zero.adb:5:12: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:6:13: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:13:21: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:13:29: info: overflow check proved
count_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
count_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
count_arr_zero.adb:16:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
count_arr_zero.adb:16:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
count_arr_zero.adb:16:31: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_arr_zero.adb:16:78: info: index check proved
```

Consider now a variant of the same counting loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
procedure Count_Vec_Zero (V : Vec_T; Counter : out Natural) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (Counter in 0 .. Natural (Length (V))) and then
((Counter = 0) = (for all K in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, K) /= 0))
is
begin
Counter := 0;
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
if Element (V, J) = 0 then
Counter := Counter + 1;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (Counter in 0 .. J);
pragma Loop_Invariant ((Counter = 0) = (for all K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) /= 0));
end loop;
end Count_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like before, the loop invariant expresses that the value of `Counter`

is a
natural number bounded by the current loop index `J`

, and that `Counter`

is
equal to zero exactly when all elements up to the current loop index have a
non-zero value. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the
postcondition of `Count_Vec_Zero`

, namely that output parameter `Counter`

is a natural number bounded by the length of the vector `V`

, and that
`Counter`

is equal to zero exactly when all elements in `V`

have a non-zero
value:

```
count_vec_zero.adb:3:38: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
count_vec_zero.adb:5:12: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:6:13: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:6:79: info: precondition proved
count_vec_zero.adb:6:91: info: range check proved
count_vec_zero.adb:12:10: info: precondition proved
count_vec_zero.adb:12:22: info: range check proved
count_vec_zero.adb:13:21: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:13:29: info: overflow check proved
count_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
count_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
count_vec_zero.adb:16:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
count_vec_zero.adb:16:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
count_vec_zero.adb:16:31: info: initialization of "Counter" proved
count_vec_zero.adb:16:84: info: precondition proved
count_vec_zero.adb:16:96: info: range check proved
```

## 7.9.2.6. Search Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to search an element of the collection that meets a given search criterion:

Loop Pattern Search with Early Exit Proof Objective Find an element or position that meets a search criterion. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection. Exits when an element that meets the search criterion is found. Loop Invariant Every element encountered so far does not meet the search criterion.

Consider a procedure `Search_Arr_Zero`

that searches an element with value
zero in array `A`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Search_Arr_Zero (A : Arr_T; Pos : out Opt_Index_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for some J in A'Range => A(J) = 0) and then
(if Success then A (Pos) = 0)
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) = 0 then
Success := True;
Pos := J;
return;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) /= 0);
end loop;
Success := False;
Pos := 0;
end Search_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have a non-zero value. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to
prove the postcondition of `Search_Arr_Zero`

, namely that output parameter
`Success`

is True if-and-only-if there is an element of the array that has
value zero, and that `Pos`

is the index of such an element:

```
search_arr_zero.adb:3:39: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_arr_zero.adb:3:62: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
search_arr_zero.adb:6:15: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_arr_zero.adb:6:31: info: index check proved
search_arr_zero.adb:6:31: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_arr_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_arr_zero.adb:15:61: info: index check proved
```

Consider now a variant of the same search loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
procedure Search_Vec_Zero (V : Vec_T; Pos : out Opt_Index_T; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for some J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, J) = 0) and then
(if Success then Element (V, Pos) = 0)
is
begin
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
if Element (V, J) = 0 then
Success := True;
Pos := J;
return;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) /= 0);
end loop;
Success := False;
Pos := 0;
end Search_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like before, the loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current
loop index `J`

have a non-zero value. With this loop invariant, GNATprove
is able to prove the postcondition of `Search_Vec_Zero`

, namely that output
parameter `Success`

is True if-and-only-if there is an element of the vector
that has value zero, and that `Pos`

is the index of such an element:

```
search_vec_zero.adb:3:39: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_zero.adb:3:62: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_vec_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
search_vec_zero.adb:5:73: info: precondition proved
search_vec_zero.adb:5:85: info: range check proved
search_vec_zero.adb:6:15: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_vec_zero.adb:6:28: info: precondition proved
search_vec_zero.adb:6:40: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_zero.adb:6:40: info: range check proved
search_vec_zero.adb:10:10: info: precondition proved
search_vec_zero.adb:10:22: info: range check proved
search_vec_zero.adb:12:17: info: range check proved
search_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_vec_zero.adb:15:67: info: precondition proved
search_vec_zero.adb:15:79: info: range check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same search loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Search_List_Zero (L : List_T; Pos : out Cursor; Success : out Boolean) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Success = (for some E of L => E = 0) and then
(if Success then Element (L, Pos) = 0)
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) /= 0);
if Element (L, Cu) = 0 then
Success := True;
Pos := Cu;
return;
end if;
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
Success := False;
Pos := No_Element;
end Search_List_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current cursor `Cu`

have a non-zero value. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove
the postcondition of `Search_List_Zero`

, namely that output parameter
`Success`

is True if-and-only-if there is an element of the list that has
value zero, and that `Pos`

is the cursor of such an element:

```
search_list_zero.adb:4:41: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:4:59: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:6:22: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:7:15: info: initialization of "Success" proved
search_list_zero.adb:7:28: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:7:40: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:11:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:12:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_list_zero.adb:12:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_list_zero.adb:12:49: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:12:70: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:13:32: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:14:10: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:14:22: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:16:17: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_zero.adb:19:07: info: precondition proved
search_list_zero.adb:19:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

The case of sets and maps is similar to the case of lists. For more complex examples of search loops, see the SPARK Tutorial as well as the section on How to Write Loop Invariants.

## 7.9.2.7. Maximize Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to search an element of the collection that maximizes a given optimality criterion:

Loop Pattern Search Optimum to Criterion Proof Objective Find an element or position that maximizes an optimality criterion. Loop Behavior Loops over the collection. Records maximum value of criterion so far and possibly index that maximizes this criterion. Loop Invariant Exactly one element encountered so far corresponds to the recorded maximum over other elements encountered so far.

Consider a procedure `Search_Arr_Max`

that searches an element maximum value
in array `A`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Search_Arr_Max (A : Arr_T; Pos : out Index_T; Max : out Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) <= Max) and then
(for some J in A'Range => A(J) = Max) and then
A(Pos) = Max
is
begin
Max := 0;
Pos := A'First;
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) > Max then
Max := A(J);
Pos := J;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) <= Max);
pragma Loop_Invariant (for some K in A'First .. J => A(K) = Max);
pragma Loop_Invariant (A(Pos) = Max);
end loop;
end Search_Arr_Max;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have a value less than `Max`

, and that `Max`

is the value of one of
these elements. The last loop invariant gives in fact this element, it is
`A(Pos)`

, but this part of the loop invariant may not be present if the
position `Pos`

for the optimum is not recorded. With this loop invariant,
GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Search_Arr_Max`

, namely
that output parameter `Max`

is the maximum of the elements in the array, and
that `Pos`

is the index of such an element:

```
search_arr_max.adb:3:38: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_arr_max.adb:3:57: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
search_arr_max.adb:5:44: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:6:44: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:7:13: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_arr_max.adb:7:20: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:14:17: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_arr_max.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_arr_max.adb:18:61: info: index check proved
search_arr_max.adb:18:67: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:19:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_arr_max.adb:19:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_arr_max.adb:19:62: info: index check proved
search_arr_max.adb:19:67: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_arr_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_arr_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_arr_max.adb:20:32: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_arr_max.adb:20:39: info: initialization of "Max" proved
```

Consider now a variant of the same search loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
procedure Search_Vec_Max (V : Vec_T; Pos : out Index_T; Max : out Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => not Is_Empty (V),
Post => (for all J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, J) <= Max) and then
(for some J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) => Element (V, J) = Max) and then
Pos in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) and then
Element (V, Pos) = Max
is
begin
Max := 0;
Pos := First_Index (V);
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
if Element (V, J) > Max then
Max := Element (V, J);
Pos := J;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) <= Max);
pragma Loop_Invariant (for some K in First_Index (V) .. J => Element (V, K) = Max);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Pos in First_Index (V) .. J);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Element (V, Pos) = Max);
end loop;
end Search_Vec_Max;
``` |

Like before, the loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current
loop index `J`

have a value less than `Max`

, and that `Max`

is the value
of one of these elements, most precisely the value of `Element (V, Pos)`

if
the position `Pos`

for the optimum is recorded. An additional loop invariant
is needed here compared to the case of arrays to state that `Pos`

remains
within the bounds of the vector. With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able
to prove the postcondition of `Search_Vec_Max`

, namely that output parameter
`Max`

is the maximum of the elements in the vector, and that `Pos`

is the
index of such an element:

```
search_vec_max.adb:3:38: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_max.adb:3:57: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:6:62: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:6:74: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:6:80: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:7:63: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:7:75: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:7:80: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:8:11: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_max.adb:9:11: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:9:23: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_max.adb:9:30: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:16:10: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:16:22: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:16:27: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:17:17: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:17:29: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:18:17: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_vec_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_vec_max.adb:20:67: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:20:79: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:20:85: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_vec_max.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_vec_max.adb:21:68: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:21:80: info: range check proved
search_vec_max.adb:21:85: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_vec_max.adb:22:30: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_max.adb:22:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_vec_max.adb:22:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_vec_max.adb:23:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_vec_max.adb:23:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_vec_max.adb:23:30: info: precondition proved
search_vec_max.adb:23:42: info: initialization of "Pos" proved
search_vec_max.adb:23:49: info: initialization of "Max" proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same search loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Search_List_Max (L : List_T; Pos : out Cursor; Max : out Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => not Is_Empty (L),
Post => (for all E of L => E <= Max) and then
(for some E of L => E = Max) and then
Has_Element (L, Pos) and then
Element (L, Pos) = Max
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
Max := 0;
Pos := Cu;
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) <= Max);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Has_Element (L, Pos));
pragma Loop_Invariant (Max = 0 or else Element (L, Pos) = Max);
if Element (L, Cu) > Max then
Max := Element (L, Cu);
Pos := Cu;
end if;
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
end Search_List_Max;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current cursor `Cu`

have a value less than `Max`

, and that `Max`

is the value of one of these
elements, most precisely the value of `Element (L, Pos)`

if the cursor
`Pos`

for the optimum is recorded. Like for vectors, an additional loop
invariant is needed here compared to the case of arrays to state that cursor
`Pos`

is a valid cursor of the list. A minor difference is that a loop
invariant now starts with `Max = 0 or else ..`

because the loop invariant is
stated at the start of the loop (for convenience with the use of
`First_To_Previous`

) which requires this modification. With this loop
invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Search_List_Max`

, namely that output parameter `Max`

is the maximum of the
elements in the list, and that `Pos`

is the cursor of such an element:

```
search_list_max.adb:4:40: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:4:58: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:7:11: info: postcondition proved
search_list_max.adb:7:12: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:7:35: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:8:12: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:8:35: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:9:27: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:10:11: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:10:23: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:10:30: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:15:11: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:17:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_list_max.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_list_max.adb:18:49: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:18:70: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:19:32: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:19:58: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_list_max.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_list_max.adb:20:46: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:21:30: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
search_list_max.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
search_list_max.adb:21:46: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:21:58: info: initialization of "Pos.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:23:10: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:23:22: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:23:28: info: initialization of "Max" proved
search_list_max.adb:24:17: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:24:29: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:25:17: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
search_list_max.adb:27:07: info: precondition proved
search_list_max.adb:27:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

The case of sets and maps is similar to the case of lists. For more complex examples of search loops, see the SPARK Tutorial as well as the section on How to Write Loop Invariants.

## 7.9.2.8. Update Loops¶

This kind of loops iterates over a collection to update individual elements based either on their value or on their position. The first pattern we consider is the one that updates elements based on their value:

Loop Pattern Modification of Elements Based on Value Proof Objective Elements of the collection are updated based on their value. Loop Behavior Loops over a collection and assigns the elements whose value satisfies a given modification criterion. Loop Invariant Every element encountered so far has been assigned according to its value.

Consider a procedure `Update_Arr_Zero`

that sets to zero all elements in
array `A`

that have a value smaller than a given `Threshold`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Update_Arr_Zero (A : in out Arr_T; Threshold : Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => (for all J in A'Range => A(J) = (if A'Old(J) <= Threshold then 0 else A'Old(J)))
is
begin
for J in A'Range loop
if A(J) <= Threshold then
A(J) := 0;
end if;
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in A'First .. J => A(K) = (if A'Loop_Entry(K) <= Threshold then 0 else A'Loop_Entry(K)));
-- The following loop invariant is generated automatically by GNATprove:
-- pragma Loop_Invariant (for all K in J + 1 .. A'Last => A(K) = A'Loop_Entry(K));
end loop;
end Update_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index
`J`

have been zeroed out if initially smaller than `Threshold`

(using
Attribute Loop_Entry). With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to
prove the postcondition of `Update_Arr_Zero`

, namely that all elements
initially smaller than `Threshold`

have been zeroed out, and that other
elements have not been modified:

```
update_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
update_arr_zero.adb:12:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_arr_zero.adb:12:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_arr_zero.adb:12:61: info: index check proved
update_arr_zero.adb:12:83: info: index check proved
update_arr_zero.adb:12:124: info: index check proved
```

Note that the commented loop invariant expressing that other elements have not been modified is not needed, as it is an example of Automatically Generated Loop Invariants.

Consider now a variant of the same update loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | ```
pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old (Allow);
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
use Loop_Types.Vectors.Formal_Model;
procedure Update_Vec_Zero (V : in out Vec_T; Threshold : Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Old
and (for all I in 1 .. Last_Index (V) =>
Element (V, I) =
(if Element (Model (V)'Old, I) <= Threshold then 0
else Element (Model (V)'Old, I)))
is
begin
for J in First_Index (V) .. Last_Index (V) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in 1 .. J - 1 =>
Element (V, I) =
(if Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I) <= Threshold then 0
else Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I)));
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in J .. Last_Index (V) =>
Element (V, I) = Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I));
if Element (V, J) <= Threshold then
Replace_Element (V, J, 0);
end if;
end loop;
end Update_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like for `Map_Vec_Incr`

, we need to use the `Model`

function over arrays to
access elements of the vector before the loop as the vector type is limited. The
loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current loop index `J`

have been zeroed out if initially smaller than `Threshold`

, that elements that
follow the current loop index have not been modified, and that the length of
`V`

is not modified (like in `Init_Vec_Zero`

). With this loop invariant,
GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Update_Vec_Zero`

:

```
update_vec_zero.adb:7:11: info: postcondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:9:13: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:9:25: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:10:18: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:10:42: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:11:20: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:11:44: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_vec_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_vec_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_vec_zero.adb:17:30: info: overflow check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:18:14: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:18:26: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:19:19: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:19:50: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:20:21: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:20:52: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:22:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_vec_zero.adb:22:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_vec_zero.adb:23:14: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:23:26: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:23:31: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:23:62: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:24:10: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:24:22: info: range check proved
update_vec_zero.adb:25:10: info: precondition proved
update_vec_zero.adb:25:30: info: range check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same update loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Update_List_Zero (L : in out List_T; Threshold : Component_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => Length (L) = Length (L)'Old
and (for all I in 1 .. Length (L) =>
Element (Model (L), I) =
(if Element (Model (L'Old), I) <= Threshold then 0
else Element (Model (L'Old), I)))
is
Cu : Cursor := First (L);
begin
while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Length (L) = Length (L)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in 1 .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 =>
Element (Model (L), I) =
(if Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I) <= Threshold then 0
else Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I)));
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) .. Length (L) =>
Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I));
if Element (L, Cu) <= Threshold then
Replace_Element (L, Cu, 0);
end if;
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
end Update_List_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements up to the current cursor `Cu`

have been zeroed out if initially smaller than `Threshold`

(using function
`Model`

to access the element stored at a given position in the list and
function `Positions`

to query the position of the current cursor), and that
elements that follow the current loop index have not been
modified. Note that it is
necessary to state here that the length of the list is not modified during the
loop. It is because the length is used to bound the quantification over the
elements of the list both in the invariant and in the postcondition.

With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of
`Update_List_Zero`

, namely that all elements initially smaller than
`Threshold`

have been zeroed out, and that other elements have not been
modified:

```
update_list_zero.adb:6:11: info: postcondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:8:13: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:9:18: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:10:20: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:14:26: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_list_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_list_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_list_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_list_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_list_zero.adb:17:29: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:17:50: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_list_zero.adb:18:13: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:19:18: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:20:20: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:22:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_list_zero.adb:22:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_list_zero.adb:22:24: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:22:45: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_list_zero.adb:23:13: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:23:33: info: range check proved
update_list_zero.adb:23:38: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:23:69: info: range check proved
update_list_zero.adb:24:10: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:24:22: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_list_zero.adb:25:10: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:25:30: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_list_zero.adb:27:07: info: precondition proved
update_list_zero.adb:27:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```

The case of sets and maps is similar to the case of lists.

The second pattern of update loops that we consider now is the one that updates elements based on their position:

Loop Pattern Modification of Elements Based on Position Proof Objective Elements of the collection are updated based on their position. Loop Behavior Loops over a collection and assigns the elements whose position satisfies a given modification criterion. Loop Invariant Every element encountered so far has been assigned according to its position.

Consider a procedure `Update_Range_Arr_Zero`

that sets to zero all elements
in array `A`

between indexes `First`

and `Last`

:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types;
procedure Update_Range_Arr_Zero (A : in out Arr_T; First, Last : Index_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Post => A = A'Old'Update (First .. Last => 0)
is
begin
for J in First .. Last loop
A(J) := 0;
pragma Loop_Invariant (A = A'Loop_Entry'Update (First .. J => 0));
end loop;
end Update_Range_Arr_Zero;
``` |

The loop invariant expresses that all elements between `First`

and the
current loop index `J`

have been zeroed out, and that other elements have not
been modified (using a combination of Attribute Loop_Entry and
Attribute Update to express this concisely). With this loop invariant,
GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Update_Range_Arr_Zero`

,
namely that all elements between `First`

and `Last`

have been zeroed out,
and that other elements have not been modified:

```
update_range_arr_zero.adb:5:11: info: postcondition proved
update_range_arr_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_arr_zero.adb:10:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_arr_zero.adb:10:64: info: range check proved
```

Consider now a variant of the same update loop over a vector:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | ```
pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old (Allow);
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Vectors;
use Loop_Types.Vectors.Formal_Model;
procedure Update_Range_Vec_Zero (V : in out Vec_T; First, Last : Index_T) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => Last <= Last_Index (V),
Post => (for all J in 1 .. Last_Index (V) =>
(if J in First .. Last then Element (V, J) = 0
else Element (V, J) = Element (Model (V)'Old, J)))
is
begin
for J in First .. Last loop
Replace_Element (V, J, 0);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Last_Index (V) = Last_Index (V)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant
(for all I in 1 .. Last_Index (V) =>
(if I in First .. J then Element (V, I) = 0
else Element (V, I) = Element (Model (V)'Loop_Entry, I)));
end loop;
end Update_Range_Vec_Zero;
``` |

Like for `Map_Vec_Incr`

, we need to use the `Model`

function over arrays to
access elements of the vector before the loop as the vector type is limited. The
loop invariant expresses that all elements between `First`

and current loop
index `J`

have been zeroed, and that other elements have not been modified.
With this loop invariant, GNATprove is able to prove the
postcondition of `Update_Range_Vec_Zero`

:

```
update_range_vec_zero.adb:8:11: info: postcondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:9:44: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:9:56: info: range check proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:10:22: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:10:34: info: range check proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:10:39: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:10:63: info: range check proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:14:07: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:15:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:17:10: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:18:41: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:18:53: info: range check proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:19:22: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:19:34: info: range check proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:19:39: info: precondition proved
update_range_vec_zero.adb:19:70: info: range check proved
```

Similarly, consider a variant of the same update loop over a list:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | ```
with Loop_Types; use Loop_Types; use Loop_Types.Lists;
with Ada.Containers; use Ada.Containers; use Loop_Types.Lists.Formal_Model;
procedure Update_Range_List_Zero (L : in out List_T; First, Last : Cursor) with
SPARK_Mode,
Pre => Has_Element (L, First) and then Has_Element (L, Last)
and then P.Get (Positions (L), First) <= P.Get (Positions (L), Last),
Post => Length (L) = Length (L)'Old
and Positions (L) = Positions (L)'Old
and (for all I in 1 .. Length (L) =>
(if I in P.Get (Positions (L), First) .. P.Get (Positions (L), Last) then
Element (Model (L), I) = 0
else Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Old), I)))
is
Cu : Cursor := First;
begin
loop
pragma Loop_Invariant (Has_Element (L, Cu));
pragma Loop_Invariant (P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) in P.Get (Positions (L), First) .. P.Get (Positions (L), Last));
pragma Loop_Invariant (Length (L) = Length (L)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant (Positions (L) = Positions (L)'Loop_Entry);
pragma Loop_Invariant (for all I in 1 .. Length (L) =>
(if I in P.Get (Positions (L), First) .. P.Get (Positions (L), Cu) - 1 then
Element (Model (L), I) = 0
else Element (Model (L), I) = Element (Model (L'Loop_Entry), I)));
Replace_Element (L, Cu, 0);
exit when Cu = Last;
Next (L, Cu);
end loop;
end Update_Range_List_Zero;
``` |

Compared to the vector example, it requires three additional invariants. As the
loop is done via a cursor, the first two loop invariants are necessary to know
that the current cursor `Cu`

stays between `First`

and `Last`

in the list.
The fourth loop invariant states that the position of cursors in `L`

is not
modified during the loop. It is necessary to know that the two cursors `First`

and
`Last`

keep designating the same range after the loop. With this loop invariant,
GNATprove is able to prove the postcondition of `Update_Range_List_Zero`

,
namely that all elements between `First`

and `Last`

have been zeroed out,
and that other elements have not been modified:

```
update_range_list_zero.adb:7:13: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:7:45: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:8:11: info: postcondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:11:23: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:11:55: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:12:16: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:13:19: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:13:44: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:18:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:18:46: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:31: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:52: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:60: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:19:92: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:20:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:21:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:22:30: info: loop invariant initialization proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:22:30: info: loop invariant preservation proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:23:42: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:23:74: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:23:95: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:24:36: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:25:38: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:25:63: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:26:07: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:26:27: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:27:17: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:28:07: info: precondition proved
update_range_list_zero.adb:28:16: info: initialization of "Cu.Node" proved
```