This chapter provides an overview of the SPARK 2014 language, detailing for each feature its consequences in terms of execution and formal verification. This is not a reference manual for the SPARK 2014 language, which can be found in:
More details on how GNAT compiles SPARK 2014 code can be found in the GNAT Reference Manual.
To facilitate formal verification, SPARK 2014 enforces a number of global simplifications to Ada 2012. The most notable simplifications are:
Uses of these features in SPARK 2014 code are detected by GNATprove and reported as errors. Formal verification is not possible on subprograms using these features.
The features listed above are excluded from SPARK 2014 because, currently, they defy formal verification. As formal verification technology advances the list will be revisited and it may be possible to relax some of these restrictions. There are other features which are technically feasible to formally verify but which were initially excluded for scheduling reasons.
SPARK 2014 provides features to strengthen the contracts on Ada subprograms to enable more in-depth verification to be performed. The more information is provided in a contract, the more verification can be performed by the SPARK 2014 tools to check that the contracts are satisfied. This ranges from data-flow and information-flow analysis through to formal proof of robustness and correctness properties.
The data-flow analysis performed by the SPARK 2014 tools considers the initialization of variables and the data dependencies of subprograms (which variables are read or written). This type of analysis can detect errors such as attempting to read from a variable which has not been assigned a value. In order to perform data-flow analysis, the tools need to know the complete set of variables which may be read or written by each subprogram, which consists of any formal parameters of the subprogram and any global variables used by the subprogram. This set of global variables may be specified by the programmer via the global annotation, as in this example:
procedure Add_To_Total (X : in Integer) with Global => (In_Out => Total);
This states that the global variable Total is both an input and an output of the subprogram (it is both read and written). If such a Global annotation is present then it will be used in the analysis of calls to the subprogram - callers may assume that Total is both read and written and, very importantly, that no other global variables are read or written by this subprogram. Then, when the body of the subprogram is analyzed, the tools will check that its implementation satisfies this contract.
If the Global annotation is not explicitly provided then the tools can derive it automatically from the body of the subprogram. This may be appropriate in a number of situations, for example:
The Depends annotation adds more detail to subprogram contracts by specifying the relationship between the inputs and the outputs.
1 2 3
procedure Swap (X, Y : in out Integer) with Depends => (X => Y, Y => X);
In the example above the Depends annotation states that the final value of X depends on the initial value of Y, and the final value of Y depends on the initial value of X. It is important to note that this is not stating the stronger property that the values of X and Y are swapped - that would require a postcondition aspect which will be described in the next section. So an implementation which, for example, doubled X and Y and then swapped their values would satisfy this dependency. If a Depends annotation is present then it must be complete: for every output of the subprogram it must specify the (possibly null) list of inputs on which that output depends.
The Depends aspect of a subprogram is used by the tools when performing flow analysis of calls to that subprogram, and it is checked by the tools when analyzing the body. This level of flow analysis is referred to as information-flow analysis. As with the other annotations discussed so far, if the Depends aspect is not provided explicitly for a subprogram then it will be synthesized by the tools. The synthesized dependency will be a conservative approximation if the body of the subprogram is not available for analysis, and may still be an approximation even if the body is available.
Preconditions and postconditions are very important annotations in SPARK 2014 as they enable us to strengthen subprogram contracts by specifying the intended behaviour in more detail. For example:
1 2 3
procedure Incr_Threshold (X : in out Integer) with Pre => X >= 0, Post => X = Integer'Min (X'Old + 1, Threshold);
The precondition states the obligation on the caller of the subprogram. For example, all callers of Incr_Threshold should ensure that the value passed in parameter is non-negative before calling Incr_Threshold. The postcondition states the obligation on the subprogram when it returns. For example, Incr_Threshold should always return in a state where the value of its parameter is the minimum between its value at entry (X'Old) incremented by one, and a given threshold value. This expresses precisely the property of incrementing until a threshold is reached.
The special attributes Result and Old defined in Ada 2012 are allowed in postconditions only (not in preconditions), to refer respectively to the result of a function, and the value of an object on subprogram entry.
When compiling with assertions (switch -gnata in GNAT), the resulting program contains run-time checks that the precondition evaluates to True on subprogram entry, and that the postcondition evaluates to True on subprogram exit. Their evaluation should also not raise a run-time error, for example when accessing an array element, or doing arithmetic computations.
When proving a subprogram with GNATprove, its precondition is assumed to hold, and its postcondition is proved. GNATprove also generates checks to prove that the precondition can never raise a run-time error, whatever the calling context. For example:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
function Add (X, Y : Integer) return Integer with Pre => X + Y in Integer, Post => Add'Result = X + Y; function Get_Value (A : My_Array; J : Index) return Element with Pre => A(J) /= No_Element, Post => Add'Result = A(J);
GNATprove generates checks to show that X + Y in the precondition of Add can never overflow, and that A(J) in the precondition of Get_Value can never access A outside its bounds. These checks cannot be proved. One can usually rewrite the precondition so that it cannot raise a run-time error, either by adding a guard in the precondition, or by using a different formulation that cannot raise a run-time error. For example:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
function Add (X, Y : Integer) return Integer with Pre => (if X > 0 and Y > 0 then X <= Integer'Last - Y) and then (if X < 0 and Y < 0 then X >= Integer'First - Y), Post => Add'Result = X + Y; function Get_Value (A : My_Array; J : Index) return Element with Pre => J in A'Range and then A(J) /= No_Element, Post => Add'Result = A(J);
For overflow checks, an alternate solution exists to avoid them altogether in annotations, by using unbounded arithmetic in annotations, see Overflow Modes.
A correct contract may not be sufficient for proof: even if the precondition and postcondition always evaluate to True, and never raise a run-time error, they might not be strong enough:
One can strengthen a contract by making its precondition more restrictive (accepting less calling contexts) and making its postcondition more precise (giving more information to prove its callers).
Note that the default precondition (resp. postcondition) of True used by GNATprove when no explicit one is given may not be strong enough.
Note also that direct recursive subprograms or mutually recursive subprograms are treated in this respect exactly like non-recursive ones. Provided the execution of these subprograms always terminates (a property that is not verified by GNATprove), then it is sound to use their contracts at call-site to prove the same contracts.
The contract of a subprogram can alternatively be specified as a set of disjoint and complete contract cases:
1 2 3
procedure Incr_Threshold (X : in out Integer) with Contract_Cases => (X < Threshold => X = X'Old + 1, X = Threshold => X = X'Old);
Each case in the list consists in a guard and a consequence separated by the symbol =>. All guards are evaluated on entry to the subprogram. For each input, only one guard should evaluate to True. The corresponding consequence should evaluate to True when returning from the subprogram. For example, the contract cases of Incr_Threshold express that the subprogram should be called in two distinct cases only:
Contract cases provide a convenient way to express complex contracts, which would be cumbersome to express with a precondition and a postcondition. For example, the contract cases of Incr_Threshold are equivalent to the following precondition and postcondition:
1 2 3 4 5 6
procedure Incr_Threshold (X : in out Integer) with Pre => (X < Threshold and not (X = Threshold)) or else (not (X < Threshold) and X = Threshold), Post => (if X'Old < Threshold'Old then X = X'Old + 1 elsif X'Old = Threshold'Old then X = X'Old);
Note that using contract cases or the equivalent (for run-time checking) preconditions and postconditions is not equivalent for proof with GNATprove. If contract cases are used, GNATprove attempts to prove that they are disjoint and complete once and for all. If preconditions and postconditions are used, GNATprove treats these properties as any other precondition, so they must be verified at each call.
Contract cases can also be used in addition to preconditions and postconditions. In that case, the cases should cover all inputs allowed by the precondition. For example, the contract of Incr_Threshold can be written:
1 2 3 4 5
procedure Incr_Threshold (X : in out Integer) with Pre => X in 0 .. Threshold, Post => X >= X'Old, Contract_Cases => (X < Threshold => X = X'Old + 1, X = Threshold => X = X'Old);
GNATprove is able to prove that the contract cases of Incr_Threshold are disjoint and complete, even if the case of X greater than Threshold is not considered, because this case is ruled out by the precondition of Incr_Threshold.
Note that the completeness is automatically reached when the last guard is others, denoting all cases that are not captured by any other guard. For example:
1 2 3 4
procedure Incr_Threshold (X : in out Integer) with Contract_Cases => (X >= 0 and X < Threshold => X = X'Old + 1, X = Threshold => X = X'Old, others => X = -1;
The postcondition of a subprogram declared in the visible part of a package may refer to objects of a private type, or to abstract state. In such cases a second, refined, version of the postcondition may be applied to the subprogram body. This restates the postcondition in terms of the full view of the private type or the constituents of the refined state. In fact, a refined postcondition may be given on the body even if there is no explicit postcondition on the declaration in the visible part, in which case the postcondition on the declaration defaults to True.
GNATprove will attempt to verify that the precondition of the subprogram together with its refined postcondition imply the postcondition on the declaration (and a warning will be reported if this cannot be shown to hold).
The example below shows how this might be used in a package which provides a type for declaring stacks of integers, and operations for that type. In the package specification the type Stack is private and the postcondition on procedure Push states that the stack will not be empty after a push. In the body, where the type Stack is fully visible, the refined postcondition gives more detail about the effect of Push. Note that Empty is an expression function - of which we will see more in the next section.
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 31 32 33
package P is type Stack is private; function Empty (S : Stack) return Boolean; procedure Push (I : in Integer; S : in out Stack) with Post => (not Empty (S)); private Stack_Size : constant := 100; type Pointer_Range is range 0 .. Stack_Size; subtype Stack_Range is Pointer_Range range 1 .. Stack_Size; type Stack_Array is array (Stack_Range) of Integer; type Stack is record Vector : Stack_Array; Pointer : Pointer_Range; end record; end P; package body P is function Empty (S : Stack) return Boolean is (S.Pointer = 0); procedure Push (I : in Integer; S : in out Stack) with Refined_Post => (S.Pointer = S.Pointer'Old + 1) is begin S.Pointer := S.Pointer + 1; S.Vector (S.Pointer) := I; end Push; end P;
The previous section discussed the Global annotation, which applies to subprograms. There are two more annotations required for data-flow analysis, and these apply to packages rather than subprograms. Consider the specification of Add_To_Total above. The global variable Total might well be declared in the body of the enclosing package. If the specification of Add_To_Total appears in the package specification, then its global annotation is referring to a variable Total about which nothing is known because the package body has not yet been analyzed. Indeed, the package body might not even have been written yet. The Abstract_State annotation allows us to announce the presence of variables declared within packages.
1 2 3 4 5 6
package P with Abstract_State => Total is procedure Add_To_Total (X : in Integer) with Global => (In_Out => Total); end P;
Any state (typically a variable or collection of variables) declared within a package specification or body (but not within a subprogram of the package) must be announced in the package’s Abstract_State annotation. As with the global annotation described above, the Abstract_State annotation may be stated explicitly by the programmer or it may be derived automatically by the tools depending on the circumstances.
The language also provides facilities for combining multiple items of package state (which could be variables of the package itself, or state from its child packages or embedded packages) into a single item of Abstract_State (hence the name). There are also facilities for dealing with volatile state representing inputs or outputs at the interface with the environment. However these are outside the scope of this overview.
In the example given above, when performing the flow analysis of any call to Add_To_Total the tools will check that Total has previously been assigned a value. This is necessary because the global annotation states that Add_To_Total reads the value of Total, so if Total is undefined then a flow error will result. In order to perform this flow analysis for the whole program the tools need to know which elements of package state are initialized when the main program starts executing and which are still uninitialized. This is the purpose of the initializes annotation - it tells us what is initialized by the elaboration of the package. In our example, package P does initialize Total so this is specified by the initializes annotation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
package P with Abstract_State => Total, Initializes => Total is procedure Add_To_Total (X : in Integer) with Global => (In_Out => Total); end P; package body P with Refined_State => (Total => T) is T : Integer := 0;
If state is initialized by the package then it must appear in an initializes annotation. If it is not initialized then it must not appear in the annotation. Once again, the initializes annotation may be derived automatically by the tools if not provided explicitly by the programmer.
Note also the use of the Refined_State annotation in the package body. Each item named in the Abstract_State annotation in the package specification may be refined onto many constituents in the package body. This is done by means of the Refined_State annotation. In this case there is a one-to-one mapping between the abstract view in the specification (Total) and the refined view in the body (T) but it could be a one-to-many relationship or even, in special cases, a one-to-null relationship.
SPARK 2014 contains many features for specifying the intended behavior of programs. Some of these features come from Ada 2012 (preconditions and postconditions for example). Other features are specific to SPARK 2014 (globals, and loop invariants for example). In this section, we describe these features and their impact on execution and formal verification.
Expression functions are functions whose body is an expression, which can be defined in a spec unit. Expression functions were introduced in Ada 2012 as a useful abstraction mechanism for stating properties in preconditions and postconditions.
Expression functions that do not have a user-defined postcondition are treated specially by GNATprove, which generates an implicit postcondition stating that their result is equal to the expression that defines them. For example, the function Increment defined as an expression function:
function Increment (X : Integer) return Integer is (X + 1);
is treated by GNATprove as if it had a postcondition:
Post => Increment'Result = X + 1;
This postcondition is automatically satisfied, so GNATprove does not generate checks for it. Expression functions that have a user-defined postcondition are treated like regular functions.
Currently, the knowledge that a function call in an annotation respects its postcondition (when called in a context where the precondition is satisfied) is only available for expression functions. Thus, expression functions should be used whenever possible for these functions called in annotations.
Sometimes it is useful to declare functions that are needed in annotations only, but that are intended never to be called in executable code. Such functions may be used to factor out common parts of expressions in annotations, or to make it easier to express some desired property to be proved or tested. Such functions are referred to as ghost functions and their key property is that they have no effect on the dynamic semantics of the Ada program. If all ghost functions and references to them in assertions were removed from the source code, the behaviour of the compiled program would be unchanged.
Ghost functions are identified by the convention Ghost and may be expression functions or regular functions. If they are regular functions, then they may be executable (with a body declared as normal) or non-executable (no body is declared). If they are non-executable, then they can only be used for proof, not testing, and their definitions might be provided by an external proof tool in order to complete the formal verification process.
The examples below show the declarations of the three types of ghost functions mentioned above.
function A_Ghost_Expr_Function (Lo, Hi : Natural) return Natural is (if Lo > Integer'Last - Hi then Lo else ((Lo + Hi) / 2)) with Pre => Lo <= Hi, Post => A_Ghost_Expr_Function'Result in Lo .. Hi, Convention => Ghost; function A_Ghost_Function (Lo, Hi : Natural) return Natural with Pre => Lo <= Hi, Post => A_Ghost_Function'Result in Lo .. Hi, Convention => Ghost; -- The body of the function is declared elsewhere. function A_Nonexecutable_Ghost_Function (Lo, Hi : Natural) return Natural with Pre => Lo <= Hi, Post => A_Nonexecutable_Ghost_Function'Result in Lo .. Hi, Convention => Ghost, Import; -- The body of the function is not declared elsewhere.
The SPARK 2014 tools verify that ghost functions cannot influence any non-ghost entities in the program.
Inside a postcondition, Ada 2012 defines attribute Old to refer to the values that expressions had at subprogram entry. For example, the postcondition of procedure Increment might specify that the value of parameter X upon returning from the procedure has been incremented:
procedure Increment (X : in out Integer) with Post => X = X'Old + 1;
By using X'Old in the postcondition, we instruct the compiler to create a copy of X at subprogram entry that can be dynamically tested when exiting the subprogram to check that the postcondition holds.
Strictly speaking, attribute Old must apply to a name in Ada syntax, for example a variable, a component selection, a call, but not an addition like X + Y. For expressions that are not names, attribute Old can be applied to their qualified version, for example:
procedure Increment_One_Of (X, Y : in out Integer) with Post => X + Y = Integer'(X + Y)'Old + 1;
Because the compiler unconditionnally creates a copy of the expression to which attribute Old is applied at subprogram entry, there is a risk that this feature might confuse users in more complex postconditions. Take the example of a procedure Extract, which copies the value of array A at index J into parameter V, and zeroes out this value in the array, but only if J is in the bounds of A:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Post => (if J in A'Range then V = A(J)'Old); -- INCORRECT
Clearly, the value of A(J) at subprogram entry is only meaningful if J is in the bounds of A. If the code above was allowed, then a copy of A(J) would be made on entry to subprogram Extract, even when J is out of bounds, which would raise a run-time error. To avoid this common pitfall, use of attribute Old in expressions that are potentially unevaluated (like the then-part in an if-expression, or the right argument of a shortcut boolean expression - See Ada RM 6.1.1) is restricted to plain variables: A is allowed, but not A(J). The GNAT compiler issues the following error on the code above:
prefix of attribute "Old" that is potentially unevaluated must denote an entity
The correct way to specify the postcondition in the case above is to apply attribute Old to the entity prefix A:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Post => (if J in A'Range then V = A'Old(J));
The rule for attribute Old inside contract cases (see Contract Cases) is more permissive. Take for example the same contract as above for procedure Extract, expressed with contract cases:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Contract_Cases => ((J in A'Range) => V = A(J)'Old, others => True);
Only the expressions used as prefixes of attribute Old in the currently enabled case are copied on entry to the subprogram. So if Extract is called with J out of the range of A, then the second case is enabled, so A(J) is not copied when entering procedure Extract. Hence, the above code is allowed.
It may still be the case that some contracts refer to the value of objects at subprogram entry inside potentially unevaluated expressions. For example, an incorrect variation of the above contract would be:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Contract_Cases => (J >= A'First => (if J <= A'Last then V = A(J)'Old), -- INCORRECT others => True);
For the same reason that such uses are forbidden by Ada RM inside postconditions, the SPARK RM forbids these uses inside contract cases (see SPARK RM 6.1.3(2)). The GNAT compiler issues the following error on the code above:
prefix of attribute "Old" that is potentially unevaluated must denote an entity
The correct way to specify the consequence expression in the case above is to apply attribute Old to the entity prefix A:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Contract_Cases => (J >= A'First => (if J <= A'Last then V = A'Old(J)), others => True);
In some cases, the compiler issues the error discussed above (on attribute Old applied to a non-entity in a potentially unevaluated context) on an expression that can safely be evaluated on subprogram entry, for example:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Post => (if J in A'Range then V = Get_If_In_Range(A,J)'Old); -- ERROR
where function Get_If_In_Range returns the value A(J) when J is in the bounds of A, and a default value otherwise.
In that case, the solution is either to rewrite the postcondition using non-shortcut boolean operators, so that the expression is not potentially evaluated anymore, for example:
procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Post => J not in A'Range or V = Get_If_In_Range(A,J)'Old;
or to use the GNAT pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old to allow such uses of attribute Old in potentially unevaluated expressions:
pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old (Allow); procedure Extract (A : in out My_Array; J : Integer; V : out Value) with Post => (if J in A'Range then V = Get_If_In_Range(A,J)'Old);
GNAT does not issue an error on the code above, and always evaluates the call to Get_If_In_Range on entry to procedure Extract, even if this value may not be used when executing the postcondition. Note that the formal verification tool GNATprove correctly generates all required checks to prove that this evaluation on subprogram entry does not fail a run-time check or a contract (like the precondition of Get_If_In_Range if any).
Pragma Unevaluated_Use_Of_Old applies to uses of attribute Old both inside postconditions and inside contract cases. See GNAT RM for a detailed description of this pragma.
Ada 2012 quantified expressions are a special case with respect to run-time errors: the enclosed expression must be run-time error free over the entire range of the quantification, not only at points that would actually be reached at execution. As an example, consider the following expression:
(for all I in 1 .. 10 => 1 / (I - 3) > 0)
This quantified expression will never raise a run-time error, because the test is already false for the first value of the range, I = 1, and the execution will stop, with the result value False. However, GNATprove requires the expression to be run-time error free over the entire range, including I = 3, so there will be an unproved check for the division by zero in this case.
In order for GNATprove to prove formally the properties of interest on subprograms with loops, the user should annotate these loops with loop invariants. A loop invariant gives information on the state at entry to the loop at each iteration. Loop invariants in SPARK 2014 are expressed with the Loop_Invariant pragma, which may appear anywhere in the main list of statements in a loop body, or directly in a chain of nested block statements in this main list of statements.
Users that are already familiar with the notion of loop invariant in other proof systems should be aware that SPARK 2014 loop invariants are slightly different: they only need to hold when the control flow of the program passes over it, so only when the loop is actually entered, and only after iterations excepting the last one.
Internally, GNATprove forms a “virtual loop” around the loop invariants to prove the subprogram. The virtual loop is formed by “unrolling” the statements preceding the first Loop_Invariant pragma until it is at the top of the loop body.
Loop invariants may have to be precise enough to prove the property of interest. For example, in order to prove the postcondition of function Contains below, one has to write a precise loop invariant such as the one given below:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
type IntArray is array (1 .. 10) of Integer; function Contains (Table : IntArray; Value : Integer) return Boolean with Post => (if Contains'Result then (for some J in Table'Range => Table (J) = Value) else (for all J in Table'Range => Table (J) /= Value)); function Contains (Table : IntArray; Value : Integer) return Boolean is begin for Index in Table'Range loop pragma Loop_Invariant (for all J in Table'First .. Index - 1 => Table (J) /= Value); if Table(Index) = Value then return True; end if; end loop; return False; end Contains;
When the loop involves modifying a variable, it may be necessary to refer to the value of the variable at loop entry. This can be done using attribute Loop_Entry. For example, the following procedure reverses the contents of an array in-place. In order to prove the postcondition, the loop invariant needs to refer to the original value of A'Loop_Entry not the value of A that has been modified by earlier iterations of the loop.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
procedure Reverse_Order (A : in out IntArray) with Post => (for all J in A'Range => A (J) = A'Old (A'Last - J + 1) and A (A'Last - J + 1) = A'Old (J)); procedure Reverse_Order (A : in out IntArray) is Temp : Integer; begin for Index in A'First .. (A'Last + 1) / 2 loop Temp := A (Index); A (Index) := A (A'Last - Index + 1); A (A'Last - Index + 1) := Temp; pragma Loop_Invariant (-- Elements that have visited so far are swapped (for all J in A'First .. Index => A (J) = A'Loop_Entry (A'Last - J + 1) and A (A'Last - J + 1) = A'Loop_Entry (J)) and then -- Elements not yet visited are unchanged (for all J in Index + 1 .. A'Last - Index => A (J) = A'Loop_Entry (J))); end loop; end Reverse_Order;
Note in particular the second conjunct in the loop invariant, which states the elements of A that have not yet been swapped. This part of an invariant or contract stating what has not been modified, called in the scientific literature the frame condition, is essential for GNATprove to work effectively. Special care should be taken to write adequate frame conditions, as they usually look obvious to programmers, and so it is very common to forget to write them.
Proofs of termination of loops rely on Loop_Variant pragmas. Proving one loop variant is sufficient to prove that a loop terminates, even if the loop contains multiple Loop_Variant pragmas, and others are not proved. Indeed, it is sufficient to know that one bounded quantity decreases or increases monotonically (or a mix of these, as loop invariants may have increasing and decreasing parts, the order of which fixes the lexicographic combined order of progress) to be assured that the loop terminates. Note that, in general, this requires proving also that there are no run-time errors in the loop, to show that the quantity stays within bounds. Otherwise, the code may still wrap around at run time (if the code is compiled without checks), and the loop will not necessarily exit.
The Loop_Variant pragmas that appear next to the first group of Loop_Invariant pragmas (or at the start of the loop body if there are no Loop_Invariant pragmas in the loop) are handled with the most precision by GNATprove, as they become loop variants of the underlying virtual loop. Other Loop_Variant pragmas are proved by showing that the quantity that should progress monotonically does so between the program point where the first group of Loop_Invariant pragmas appears (or the start of the loop if there is no such group) and the program point where the Loop_Variant pragma appears, and that this quantity either stays the same or progresses on the rest of the loop.
GNATprove may need to consider many possible paths through a subprogram. If this number of paths is too large, GNATprove will take a long time to prove even trivial properties. To reduce the number of paths analyzed by GNATprove, one may use the pragma Assert_And_Cut, to mark program points where GNATprove can cut paths, replacing precise knowledge about execution before the program point by the assertion given. The effect of this pragma for compilation is exactly the same as the one of pragma Assert.
For example, in the procedure below, all that is needed to prove that the code using X is free from run-time errors is that X is positive. Without the pragma, GNATprove considers all execution paths through P, which may be many. With the pragma, GNATprove only needs to consider 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;
Annotations such as preconditions, postconditions, assertions, loop invariants, are analyzed by GNATprove with the exact same meaning that they have during execution. In particular, evaluating the expressions in an annotation may raise a run-time error, in which case GNATprove will attempt to prove that this error cannot occur, and report a warning otherwise.
Integer overflows are a kind of run-time error that occurs when the result of an arithmetic computation does not fit in the bounds of the machine type used to hold the result. In some cases, it is convenient to express properties in annotations as they would be expressed in mathematics, where quantities are unbounded, for example:
1 2 3
function Add (X, Y : Integer) return Integer with Pre => X + Y in Integer, Post => Add'Result = X + Y;
The precondition of Add states that the result of adding its two parameters should fit in type Integer. In the default mode, evaluating this expression will fail an overflow check, because the result of X + Y is stored in a temporary of type Integer. If the compilation switch -gnato13 is used, then annotations are compiled specially, so that arithmetic operations use unbounded intermediate results. In this mode, GNATprove does not generate a check for the addition of X and Y in the precondition of Add, as there is no possible overflow here.
There are three overflow modes:
The desired mode of for handling intermediate overflow can be specified using either the Overflow_Mode pragma or an equivalent compiler switch. The pragma has the form:
pragma Overflow_Mode ([General =>] MODE [, [Assertions =>] MODE]);
where MODE is one of
pragma Overflow_Mode (General => Strict, Assertions => Eliminated);
specifies that general expressions outside assertions be evaluated in the usual strict mode, and expressions within assertions be evaluated in “eliminate intermediate overflows” mode. Currently, GNATprove only supports pragma Overflow_Mode being specified in a configuration pragma file.
Additionally, a compiler switch -gnato?? can be used to control the checking mode default. Here ? is one of the digits 1 through 3:
The switch -gnato13, like the Overflow_Mode pragma above, specifies that general expressions outside assertions be evaluated in the usual strict mode, and expressions within assertions be evaluated in “eliminate intermediate overflows” mode.
Note that these modes apply only to the evaluation of predefined arithmetic, membership, and comparison operators for signed integer arithmetic.
For further details of the meaning of these modes, and for further information about the treatment of overflows for fixed-point and floating-point arithmetic please refer to the “Overflow Check Handling in GNAT” appendix in the GNAT User’s Guide.
Containers are generic data structures offering a high-level view of collections of objects, while guaranteeing fast access to their content to retrieve or modify it. The most common containers are lists, vectors, sets and maps, which are defined in Ada Standard Libraries. In critical software where verification objectives severely restrict the use of pointers, containers offer an attractive alternative to pointer-intensive data structures.
There are 6 formal containers, which are part of the GNAT standard library:
They are adapted to critical software development. They are bounded, so that there can be no dynamic allocation and they have preconditions that can be used to ensure that there is no error at run-time. They are experimental, and, as such, should be used with care. In particular, the examples below can be compiled and fed to GNATprove but not everything is proved about them in a reasonable amount of time.
Specification of formal containers is in SPARK 2014. As a consequence, there is no procedure that take a procedure as an argument such that Update_Element or Query_Element in Ada Standard container library.
Formal containers are adapted to the specification process. First of all, cursors no longer have a reference to underlying container. Indeed, in Ada Standard container library, cursors contain a pointer to their underlying container. As a consequence, if a container is modified, then so are all cursors attached to this container, which is contrary to the philosophy of modular verification in SPARK 2014, hence the modification to separate cursors from containers. This modification also allows you to use the same cursor with different containers. In particular, it is useful to link elements associated to a list before and after a modification. Formal containers also provide three new functions per container type. Current_To_Last (C : Container; Cu : Cursor) returns Container and First_To_Previous (C : Container; Cu : Cursor) returns Container can be used to write loop invariant. They return the trailing (resp. the leading) part of the container C starting before (resp. stopping before) the cursor Cu.
For example, in the function My_Find below, First_To_Previous is used in the loop invariant to state that the element E has not been found in the part of the list that as been analyzed already.
1 2 3 4 5 6
function My_Find (L : List; E : Element_Type) return Cursor with Post => (if My_Find'Result = No_Element then not Contains (L, E) else (Has_Element (L, My_Find'Result) and then Element (L, My_Find'Result) = E));
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
function My_Find (L : List; E : Element_Type) return Cursor is Cu : Cursor := First (L); begin while Has_Element (L, Cu) loop pragma Loop_Invariant (not Contains (First_To_Previous (L, Cu), E)); if Element (L, Cu) = E then return Cu; end if; Next (L, Cu); end loop; return No_Element; end My_Find;
The third new function, Strict_Equal (C1, C2 : Container) checks whether C1 and C2 really are equal with respect to everything that can impact existing functions of the library. On lists for example, it does not only check that C1 and C2 contain the same elements in the same order but also that C1 and C2 share the same cursors. This function is generaly used for stating which parts of a container do not change in a loop invariant or a postcondition.
Note that the model of Strict_Equal uses the theoretical equality on elements whereas its implementation uses the parameter = of the generic to compare elements. This is done so that the function Strict_Equal can always be used to express invariant properties of collections over loops and calls. This difference between proof and test means that, when the parameter = used to instantiate a generic formal container is not the physical equality on elements, a user should be careful not to use testing to discharge assumptions involving Strict_Equal, such as preconditions of proven subprograms and postconditions of programs called by a proven subprogram, which mention Strict_Equal.
For example, in the function My_Prepend below, Strict_Equal is used to state that My_Prepend does not modify the tail of the list. Note that we use First (L1'Old) to refer to the first element of the tail in the postcondition of My_Prepend, which would not have been possible if cursors still had an internal reference to the list they come from.
1 2 3 4 5
procedure My_Prepend (L1 : in out List; E : Element_Type) with Pre => L1.Capacity > Length (L1), Post => Length (L1) = 1 + Length (L1'Old) and then First_Element (L1) = E and then Strict_Equal (Current_To_Last(L1, First (L1'Old)), L1'Old);
The Ada 2012 language provides quantified expressions that can be used to express a property over a standard container. For example, that all elements of a list of integers are prime, which can be expressed by iterating over cursors as follows:
(for all Cu in My_List => Is_Prime (Element (Cu)))
The general mechanism in Ada 2012 that provides this functionality relies on the use of tagged types (for the container type) and various aspects involving access types, so cannot be applied to the SPARK formal containers.
Instead, formal containers are annotated with an aspect named Iterable that provides the same functionality in a simpler way, leading also to much simpler object code. For example, here is the definition of the type List for doubly linked lists:
type List (Capacity : Count_Type) is private with Iterable => (First => First, Has_Element => Has_Element, Next => Next, Element => Element);
Thanks to this mechanism, one can use a quantified expression to express that all elements of a formal list of integers are prime:
(for all Cu in My_List => Is_Prime (Element (My_List, Cu)))
The compiler will generate code that iterates over My_List using the functions First, Has_Element and Next given in the Iterable aspect, so that the above is equivalent to:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
declare Cu : Cursor_Type := First (My_List); Result : Boolean := True; begin while Result and then Has_Element (My_List, Cu) loop Result := Is_Prime (Element (My_List, Cu)); Cu := Next (My_List, Cu); end loop; end;
where Result is the value of the quantified expression.