# Aspects or Pragmas Specific to GNATprove¶

This appendix lists all the aspects or pragmas specific to GNATprove,
in particular all the uses of aspect or pragma `Annotate`

for
GNATprove. Aspect or pragma `Annotate`

can also be used to control other
AdaCore tools. The uses of such annotations are explained in the User’s guide
of each tool.

Annotations in GNATprove are useful in two cases:

for justifying check messages using Direct Justification with Pragma Annotate, typically using a pragma rather than an aspect, as the justification is generally associated to a statement or declaration.

for influencing the generation of proof obligations, typically using an aspect rather than a pragma, as the annotation is generally associated to an entity in that case. Some of these uses can be seen in SPARK Libraries for example. Some of these annotations introduce additional assumptions which are not verified by the GNATprove tool, and thus should be used with care.

When the annotation is associated to an entity, both the pragma and aspect form can be used and are equivalent, for example on a subprogram:

```
function Func (X : T) return T
with Annotate => (GNATprove, <annotation name>);
```

or

```
function Func (X : T) return T;
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, <annotation name>, Func);
```

In the following, we use the aspect form whenever possible.

## Using Annotations to Justify Check Messages¶

You can use annotations of the form

```
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, False_Positive,
"message to be justified", "reason");
```

to justify an unproved check message that cannot be proved by other means. See
the section Direct Justification with Pragma Annotate for more details
about this use of pragma `Annotate`

.

## Using Annotations to Specify Possibly Nonreturning Procedures¶

You can use annotations of the form

```
procedure Proc
with Annotate => (GNATprove, Might_Not_Return);
```

to specify that a procedure might not return. See the section Nonreturning Procedures for more details about this use of annotations.

## Using Annotations to Request Proof of Termination¶

By default, GNATprove does not prove termination of subprograms. You can instruct it to do so using annotations of the form:

```
procedure Proc
with Annotate => (GNATprove, Terminating);
```

See the section Subprogram Termination about details of this use of annotations.

## Using Annotations to Request Overflow Checking on Modular Types¶

The standard semantics of arithmetic on modular types is that operations wrap around, hence GNATprove issues no overflow checks on such operations. You can instruct it to issue such checks (hence detecting possible wrap-around) using annotations of the form:

```
type T is mod 2**32
with Annotate => (GNATprove, No_Wrap_Around);
```

or on a derived type:

```
type T is new U
with Annotate => (GNATprove, No_Wrap_Around);
```

This annotation is inherited by derived types. It must be specified on a type
declaration (and cannot be specified on a subtype declaration). All four binary
arithmetic operations + - * ** are checked for possible overflows. Division
cannot lead to overflow. Unary negation is checked for possible non-nullity of
its argument, which leads to overflow. The predecessor attribute `'Pred`

and
successor attribute `'Succ`

are also checked for possible overflows.

## Customize Quantification over Types with the Iterable Aspect¶

In SPARK, it is possible to allow quantification over any container type
using the `Iterable`

aspect.
This aspect provides the primitives of a container type that will be used to
iterate over its content. For example, if we write:

```
type Container is private with
Iterable => (First => First,
Next => Next,
Has_Element => Has_Element);
```

where

```
function First (S : Set) return Cursor;
function Has_Element (S : Set; C : Cursor) return Boolean;
function Next (S : Set; C : Cursor) return Cursor;
```

then quantification over containers can be done using the type `Cursor`

. For
example, we could state:

```
(for all C in S => P (Element (S, C)))
```

to say that `S`

only contains elements for which a property `P`

holds. For
execution, this expression is translated as a loop using the provided `First`

,
`Has_Element`

, and `Next`

primitives. For proof, it is translated as a logic
quantification over every element of type `Cursor`

. To restrict the property
to cursors that are actually valid in the container, the provided function
`Has_Element`

is used. For example, the property stated above becomes:

```
(for all C : Cursor => (if Has_Element (S, C) then P (Element (S, C)))
```

Like for the standard Ada iteration mechanism, it is possible to allow
quantification directly over the elements of the container by providing in
addition an `Element`

primitive to the `Iterable`

aspect. For example, if
we write:

```
type Container is private with
Iterable => (First => First,
Next => Next,
Has_Element => Has_Element
Element => Element);
```

where

```
function Element (S : Set; C : Cursor) return Element_Type;
```

then quantification over containers can be done directly on its elements. For example, we could rewrite the above property into:

```
(for all E of S => P (E))
```

For execution, quantification over elements of a container is translated as a loop over its cursors. In the same way, for proof, quantification over elements of a container is no more than syntactic sugar for quantification over its cursors. For example, the above property is translated using quantification over cursors :

```
(for all C : Cursor => (if Has_Element (S, C) then P (Element (S, C)))
```

Depending on the application, this translation may be too low-level and introduce an unnecessary burden on the automatic provers. As an example, let us consider a package for functional sets:

```
package Sets with SPARK_Mode is
type Cursor is private;
type Set (<>) is private with
Iterable => (First => First,
Next => Next,
Has_Element => Has_Element,
Element => Element);
function Mem (S : Set; E : Element_Type) return Boolean with
Post => Mem'Result = (for some F of S => F = E);
function Intersection (S1, S2 : Set) return Set with
Post => (for all E of Intersection'Result => Mem (S1, E) and Mem (S2, E))
and (for all E of S1 =>
(if Mem (S2, E) then Mem (Intersection'Result, E)));
```

Sets contain elements of type `Element_Type`

. The most basic operation on sets
is membership test, here provided by the `Mem`

subprogram. Every other
operation, such as intersection here, is then specified in terms of members.
Iteration primitives `First`

, `Next`

, `Has_Element`

, and `Element`

, that
take elements of a private type `Cursor`

as an argument, are only provided for
the sake of quantification.

Following the scheme described previously, the postcondition of `Intersection`

is translated for proof as:

```
(for all C : Cursor =>
(if Has_Element (Intersection'Result, C) then
Mem (S1, Element (Intersection'Result, C))
and Mem (S2, Element (Intersection'Result, C))))
and
(for all C1 : Cursor =>
(if Has_Element (S1, C1) then
(if Mem (S2, Element (S1, C1)) then
Mem (Intersection'Result, Element (S1, C1)))))
```

Using the postcondition of `Mem`

, this can be refined further into:

```
(for all C : Cursor =>
(if Has_Element (Intersection'Result, C) then
(for some C1 : Cursor =>
Has_Element (S1, C1) and Element (Intersection'Result, C) = Element (S1, C1))
and (for some C2 : Cursor =>
Has_Element (S2, C2) and Element (Intersection'Result, C) = Element (S2, C2)))))
and
(for all C1 : Cursor =>
(if Has_Element (S1, C1) then
(if (for some C2 : Cursor =>
Has_Element (S2, C2) and Element (S1, C1) = Element (S2, C2)))
then (for some C : Cursor => Has_Element (Intersection'Result, C)
and Element (Intersection'Result, C) = Element (S1, C1))))))
```

Though perfectly valid, this translation may produce complicated proofs,
especially when verifying complex properties over sets. The GNATprove
annotation `Iterable_For_Proof`

can be used to change the way `for ... of`

quantification is translated. More precisely, it allows to provide GNATprove
with a Contains function, that will be used for quantification. For example,
on our sets, we could write:

```
function Mem (S : Set; E : Element_Type) return Boolean;
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, Iterable_For_Proof, "Contains", Mem);
```

With this annotation, the postcondition of `Intersection`

is translated in a
simpler way, using logic quantification directly over elements:

```
(for all E : Element_Type =>
(if Mem (Intersection'Result, E) then Mem (S1, E) and Mem (S2, E)))
and (for all E : Element_Type =>
(if Mem (S1, E) then
(if Mem (S2, E) then Mem (Intersection'Result, E))))
```

Note that care should be taken to provide an appropriate function contains,
which returns true if and only if the element `E`

is present in `S`

. This
assumption will not be verified by GNATprove.

The annotation `Iterable_For_Proof`

can also be used in another case.
Operations over complex data structures are sometimes specified using operations
over a simpler model type. In this case, it may be more appropriate to translate
`for ... of`

quantification as quantification over the model’s cursors. As an
example, let us consider a package of linked lists that is specified using a
sequence that allows accessing the element stored at each position:

```
package Lists with SPARK_Mode is
type Sequence is private with
Ghost,
Iterable => (...,
Element => Get);
function Length (M : Sequence) return Natural with Ghost;
function Get (M : Sequence; P : Positive) return Element_Type with
Ghost,
Pre => P <= Length (M);
type Cursor is private;
type List is private with
Iterable => (...,
Element => Element);
function Position (L : List; C : Cursor) return Positive with Ghost;
function Model (L : List) return Sequence with
Ghost,
Post => (for all I in 1 .. Length (Model'Result) =>
(for some C in L => Position (L, C) = I));
function Element (L : List; C : Cursor) return Element_Type with
Pre => Has_Element (L, C),
Post => Element'Result = Get (Model (L), Position (L, C));
function Has_Element (L : List; C : Cursor) return Boolean with
Post => Has_Element'Result = (Position (L, C) in 1 .. Length (Model (L)));
procedure Append (L : in out List; E : Element_Type) with
Post => length (Model (L)) = Length (Model (L))'Old + 1
and Get (Model (L), Length (Model (L))) = E
and (for all I in 1 .. Length (Model (L))'Old =>
Get (Model (L), I) = Get (Model (L'Old), I));
function Init (N : Natural; E : Element_Type) return List with
Post => length (Model (Init'Result)) = N
and (for all F of Init'Result => F = E);
```

Elements of lists can only be accessed through cursors. To specify easily the
effects of position-based operations such as `Append`

, we introduce a ghost
type `Sequence`

, that is used to represent logically the content of the linked
list in specifications.
The sequence associated to a list can be constructed using the `Model`

function. Following the usual translation scheme for quantified expressions, the
last line of the postcondition of `Init`

is translated for proof as:

```
(for all C : Cursor =>
(if Has_Element (Init'Result, C) then Element (Init'Result, C) = E));
```

Using the definition of `Element`

and `Has_Element`

, it can then be refined
further into:

```
(for all C : Cursor =>
(if Position (Init'Result, C) in 1 .. Length (Model (Init'Result))
then Get (Model (Init'Result), Position (Init'Result, C)) = E));
```

To be able to link this property with other properties specified directly on
models, like the postcondition of `Append`

, it needs to be lifted to iterate
over positions instead of cursors. This can be done using the postcondition of
`Model`

that states that there is a valid cursor in `L`

for each position of
its model. This lifting requires a lot of quantifier reasoning from the prover,
thus making proofs more difficult.

The GNATprove `Iterable_For_Proof`

annotation can be used to provide
GNATprove with a Model function, that will be to translate quantification on
complex containers toward quantification on their model. For example, on our
lists, we could write:

```
function Model (L : List) return Sequence;
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, Iterable_For_Proof, "Model", Entity => Model);
```

With this annotation, the postcondition of `Init`

is translated directly as a
quantification on the elements of the result’s model:

```
(for all I : Positive =>
(if I in 1 .. Length (Model (Init'Result)) then
Get (Model (Init'Result), I) = E));
```

Like with the previous annotation, care should be taken to define the model
function such that it always return a model containing exactly the same elements
as `L`

.

## Inlining Functions for Proof¶

Contracts for functions are generally translated by GNATprove as axioms on otherwise undefined functions. As an example, consider the following function:

```
function Increment (X : Integer) return Integer with
Post => Increment'Result >= X;
```

It will be translated by GNATprove as follows:

```
function Increment (X : Integer) return Integer;
axiom : (for all X : Integer. Increment (X) >= X);
```

For internal reasons due to ordering issues, expression functions are also defined using axioms. For example:

```
function Is_Positive (X : Integer) return Boolean is (X > 0);
```

will be translated exactly as if its definition was given through a postcondition, namely:

```
function Is_Positive (X : Integer) return Boolean;
axiom : (for all X : Integer. Is_Positive (X) = (X > 0));
```

This encoding may sometimes cause difficulties to the underlying solvers, especially for quantifier instantiation heuristics. This can cause strange behaviors, where an assertion is proven when some calls to expression functions are manually inlined but not without this inlining.

If such a case occurs, it is sometimes possible to instruct the tool to inline
the definition of expression functions using pragma `Annotate`

`Inline_For_Proof`

. When such a pragma is provided for an expression
function, a direct definition will be used for the function instead of an
axiom:

```
function Is_Positive (X : Integer) return Boolean is (X > 0);
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, Inline_For_Proof, Is_Positive);
```

The same pragma will also allow to inline a regular function, if its postcondition is simply an equality between its result and an expression:

```
function Is_Positive (X : Integer) return Boolean with
Post => Is_Positive'Result = (X > 0);
pragma Annotate (GNATprove, Inline_For_Proof, Is_Positive);
```

In this case, GNATprove will introduce a check when verifying the body of
`Is_Positive`

to make sure that the inline annotation is correct, namely, that
`Is_Positive (X)`

and `X > 0`

always yield the same result. This check
may not be redundant with the verification of the postcondition of
`Is_Positive`

if the `=`

symbol on booleans has been overridden.

Note that, since the translation through axioms is necessary for ordering
issues, this annotation can sometimes lead to a crash in GNATprove. It is the
case for example when the definition of the function uses quantification over a
container using the `Iterable`

aspect.

## Supplying a Pledge for a Borrower¶

Local borrowers are objects of an anonymous access-to-variable type. At their declaration, the ownership of (a part of) an existing data-structure is temporarily transferred to the new object. The borrowed data-structure will regain ownership afterward.

During the lifetime of the borrower, the borrowed object can be modified indirectly through the borrower. It is forbidden to modify or even read the borrowed object during the borrow. It can be problematic in some cases, for example if a borrower is modified inside a loop, as GNATprove will need information supplied in a loop invariant to know how the borrowed object and the borrower are related in the loop and after it.

In assertions, we are still allowed to
express properties over a borrowed object using a pledge. The notion of
pledges was introduced by researchers from ETH Zurich to verify Rust programs
(see https://2019.splashcon.org/details/splash-2019-oopsla/31/Leveraging-Rust-Types-for-Modular-Specification-and-Verification).
Conceptually, a pledge is a property involving a borrower and/or the objet it
borrows which is known to always hold during the scope of the borrow, no matter
the modifications that may be done to either the borrower or the borrowed
object. As pledges are not yet supported at a language level in SPARK, it is
possible to mark (a part of) an assertion as a pledge by using an expression
function which is annotated with a `Pledge Annotate`

pragma:

```
function Pledge (Borrower : access constant T; Prop : Boolean) return Boolean is
(Prop)
with Ghost,
Annotate => (GNATprove, Pledge);
```

Note that the name of the function could be something other than `Pledge`

, but
the annotation should use the string `Pledge`

. GNATprove will check that a
function associated with the `Pledge`

annotation is a ghost
expression function which takes a borrower and a property and simply returns the
property.

When GNATprove encounters a call to such a function, it knows that
the property given as a second parameter to the call must be handled as a pledge
of the local borrower given as a first parameter. It will not interpret it as
a property which should hold over the current values of the borrower and the
borrowed object, but as a sort of invariant, which should be known to always
hold during the scope of `Borrower`

.
Access to a borrowed variable inside a pledge is allowed by the SPARK
reference manual, which gives a provision for reading borrowed variables at any
time and in any context during the borrow. However, GNATprove will reject
such reads if they do not occur as part of a pledge.

As an example, let us consider a recursive type of doubly-linked lists:

```
type List;
type List_Acc is access List;
type List is record
Val : Integer;
Next : List_Acc;
end record;
```

Using this type, let us construct a list `X`

which stored the numbers form
1 to 5:

```
X := new List'(1, null);
X.Next := new List'(2, null);
X.Next.Next := new List'(3, null);
X.Next.Next.Next := new List'(4, null);
X.Next.Next.Next.Next := new List'(5, null);
```

We can borrow the structure designated by `X`

in a local borrower `Y`

:

```
declare
Y : access List := X;
begin
...
end;
```

While in the scope of `Y`

, the ownership of the list designated by `X`

is
transferred to `Y`

, so that it is not allowed to access it from `X`

anymore. After the end of the declare block, ownership is restored to `X`

,
which can again be accessed or modified directly.

Let us now define a pledge function that can be used to relate the values
designated by `X`

and `Y`

during the time of the borrow:

```
function Pledge (Borrower : access constant List; Prop : Boolean) return Boolean is
(Prop)
with Ghost,
Annotate => (GNATprove, Pledge);
```

We can use this function to give properties that are known to hold during the
scope of `Y`

. Since `Y`

and `X`

designate the same value, we can
state in a pledge that the `Val`

and `Next`

components of `X`

and `Y`

always match:

```
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Val = Y.Val));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next = Y.Next));
```

However, even though at the beginning of the declare block, the first value of
`X`

is 1, it is not correct to assert that it will remain so inside a pledge:

```
pragma Assert (Y.Val = 1); -- proved
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Val = 1)); -- incorrect
```

Indeed, `Y`

could be modified later so that `X.Val`

is not 1 anymore:

```
declare
Y : access List := X;
begin
Y.Val := 2;
end;
pragma Assert (X.Val = 2);
```

Note that the pledge above is invalid even if `Y.Val`

is not modified in the
following statements. A pledge is a contract about what
is known to necessarily hold in the
scope of `Y`

, not what will happen in practice. The analysis performed by
GNATprove remains a forward analysis, which should not be impacted by statements
occurring after the current one.

Let us now consider a case where `X`

is not borrowed completely. In the
declaration of `Y`

, we can decide to borrow only the last three elements of
the list:

```
declare
Y : access List := X.Next.Next;
begin
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next.Val = Y.Val));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next /= null));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next /= null));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next.Val = 3)); -- incorrect
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Val = 1)); -- incorrect
X.Val := 42;
end;
```

Here, like in the previous example, we can state in a pledge that
`X.Next.Next.Val`

is `Y.Val`

. Additionally, since `Y.Next.Next`

has been
borrowed, we know that `Y.Next.Next`

will remain a valid path throughout
the borrow. This is why we can state in a pledge that `X.Next`

will never
be null. Like in the previous example, we cannot assume anything about the
part of `X`

designated by `Y`

, so we won’t be able to prove that
`X.Next.Next.Val`

will remain 3. This is also true for parts of `X`

which
have not been borrowed by `Y`

. During the scope of `Y`

, we are allowed to
modify `X.Val`

for example, so we cannot assert in a pledge that it will
remain 1.

Inside the scope of `Y`

, it is possible to modify the variable `Y`

itself,
as opposed to modifying the structure it designates, so that it gives access to
a subcomponent of the borrowed structure. It is called a reborrow. In case of
reborrow, the pledge of the borrower is modified so that it corresponds to the
relation between the object borrowed initially and the new borrower. For
example, let’s use `Y`

to borrow `X`

entirely and then modify it to only
designate `X.Next.Next`

:

```
declare
Y : access List := X;
begin
Y := Y.Next.Next;
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next /= null));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Val = 1));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Val = 2));
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next.Val = 3)); -- incorrect
pragma Assert (Pledge (Y, X.Next.Next.Next /= null)); -- incorrect
end;
```

After the assignment, the part of `X`

still accessible from the borrower is
reduced, but since `X`

was borrowed entirely to begin with, the ownership
policy of SPARK still forbids direct access to any components of `X`

while in
the scope of `Y`

. As a result, we have a bit more information about the final
value of `X`

than in the previous case. As before, we know that `X`

will
hold at least three elements, that is `X.Next.Next /= null`

. Additionally,
the first and second components of `X`

are no longer accessible from
`Y`

, and since they cannot be accessed directly through `X`

, we know that
they will keep their current values. This is why we can now assert in a pledge
that `X.Val`

is 1 and `X.Next.Val`

is 2.

However, we still cannot know anything
about the part of `X`

still accessible from `Y`

as these properties
could be modified later in the borrow:

```
Y.Val := 42;
Y.Next := null;
```

Pledge functions are also useful in postconditions of borrowing traversal functions. A borrowing traversal function is a function which returns a local borrower of its first parameter. As GNATprove works modularly on a per subprogram basis, it is necessary to specify the pledge of the result of such a function in its postcondition, or proof would not be able to recompute the value of the borrowed parameter after the returned borrower goes out of scope.

As an example, we can define a `Tail`

function which returns the `Next`

component of a list if there is one, and `null`

otherwise:

```
function Tail (L : access List) return access List is
begin
if L = null then
return null;
else
return L.Next;
end if;
end Tail;
```

In its postcondition, we want to consider the two cases, and, in each case,
specify both the value returned by the function and how the
parameter `L`

is related to the returned borrower:

```
function Tail (L : access List) return access List with
Contract_Cases =>
(L = null =>
Tail'Result = null and Pledge (Tail'Result, L = null),
others => Tail'Result = L.Next
and Pledge (Tail'Result, L.Val = L.Val'Old)
and Pledge (Tail'Result, L.Next = Tail'Result));
```

If `L`

is `null`

then `Tail`

returns `null`

and `L`

will stay `null`

for the duration of the borrow. Otherwise, `Tail`

returns `L.Next`

, the
first element of `L`

will stay as it was at the time of call, and the rest
of `L`

stays equal to the object returned by `Tail`

.

Thanks to this postcondition, we can verify a program which borrows a part of
`L`

using the `Tail`

function and modifies `L`

through this borrower:

```
declare
Y : access List := Tail (Tail (X));
begin
Y.Val := 42;
end;
pragma Assert (X.Val = 1);
pragma Assert (X.Next.Val = 2);
pragma Assert (X.Next.Next.Val = 42);
pragma Assert (X.Next.Next.Next.Val = 4);
```