Portability Issues

Compiling with a non-SPARK Aware Compiler

To execute a SPARK program, it is expected that users will compile the program (as an Ada program) using an Ada compiler. The SPARK language definition defines a number of implementation-defined (with respect to the Ada language definition) aspects, attributes, pragmas, and conventions. Ideally a SPARK program will be compiled using an Ada compiler that supports all of these constructs. Portability problems may arise if this is not the case.

This section is a discussion of the strategies available for coping with this situation.

Probably the most important rule is that pragmas should be used instead of aspect_specification syntax wherever this option is available. For example, use pragma Abstract_State rather than specifying the Abstract_State aspect of a package using aspect_specification syntax. Ada specifies that unrecognized pragmas shall be ignored, as opposed to being rejected. This is not the case for (syntactic) aspect specifications (this terminology is a bit confusing because a pragma can be used to specify an aspect; such a pragma is semantically, but not syntactically, an aspect specification). Furthermore, aspect specification syntax was introduced in Ada 2012 and will be rejected if the program is compiled as, for example, an Ada 95 program.

Many SPARK-defined constructs have no dynamic semantics (e.g., the Global, Depends, and Abstract_State aspects), so the run-time behavior of a program is unaffected if they are ignored by a compiler. Thus, there is no problem if these constructs are expressed as pragmas which are then ignored by the Ada compiler.

Of those constructs which do have dynamic semantics, most are run-time assertions. These include Loop_Variant, Loop_Invariant, Assert_And_Cut, Contract_Cases, Initial_Condition, and Refined_Postcondition. Because SPARK requires that the success of these assertions must be statically proven (and that the evaluation of the asserted condition can have no side effects), the run-time behavior of a program is unaffected if they are ignored by a compiler.

The situation with pragma Assume is slightly different because the success of the given condition is not statically proven. If ignoring an Assume pragma at run time is deemed to be unacceptable, then it can be replaced with an Assert pragma (at the cost of introducing a source code difference between the SPARK program that is analyzed statically and the Ada program that is executed). An ignored Assume pragma is the only case where the use of a SPARK-specific construct can lead to a portability problem which is not detected at compile time. In all other cases, either the Ada compiler will reject (as opposed to ignore) an unrecognized construct or the construct can safely be ignored.

An Ada compiler which does not support convention Ghost will reject any use of this convention. Two safe transformations are available for dealing with this situation - either replace uses of convention Ghost with convention Ada or delete the entities declared with a convention of Ghost. Just as was mentioned above in the case of modifying an Assume pragma, either choice introduces an analyzed/executed source code difference.

There are two SPARK attributes which cannot be used if they are not supported by the Ada compiler in question: the Update and Loop_Entry attributes.

SPARK includes a rule that a package which declares a state abstraction requires a body. In the case of a library unit package (or generic package) which requires a body only because of this rule, an Ada compiler that knows nothing about state abstractions would reject the body of the package because of the rule (introduced in Ada 95) that a library unit package (or generic package) body is never optional; if it is not required then it is forbidden. In the unlikely event that this scenario arises in practice, the solution is to force the library unit package to require a body for some other reason, typically by adding an Elaborate_Body pragma.

If a SPARK program is to be compiled and executed as an Ada 95 program (or any other pre-2012 version of Ada), then of course any construct introduced in a later version of Ada must be avoided (unless it is expressed as a safely-ignored pragma). This seems worth mentioning because Ada 2012 constructs such as quantified expressions and conditional expressions are often heavily used in SPARK programs.

Implementation-specific Decisions

To make analysis as precise as possible and avoid producing too many false alarms, GNATprove makes some assumptions about the behavior of constructs which are listed in the reference manual of Ada as implementation specific. Note that GNATprove always adopts the same choices as the GNAT compiler, so these assumptions should be adequate when compiling with GNAT. However, when another compiler is used, it may be better to avoid these implementation specific constructs (see Benefits of Using SPARK for Portability for more details on how this can be achieved).

Parenthesized Arithmetic Operations

In Ada, non-parenthesized arithmetic operations could be re-ordered by the compiler, which may result in a failing computation (due to overflow checking) becoming a successful one, and vice-versa. By default, GNATprove evaluates all expressions left-to-right, like GNAT. When the switch --pedantic is used, a warning is emitted for every operation that could be re-ordered:

  • any operand of a binary adding operation (+,-) that is itself a binary adding operation;

  • any operand of a binary multiplying operation (*,/,mod,rem) that is itself a binary multiplying operation.

Base Type of User-Defined Integer Types

GNATprove follows GNAT in choosing as base type the smallest multiple-words-size integer type that contains the type bounds. For example, a user-defined type ranging from 1 to 100 will be given a base type ranging from -128 to 127 by both GNAT and GNATprove. The choice of base types influences in which cases intermediate overflows may be raised during computation. The choice made in GNATprove is the strictest one among existing compilers, as far as we know, which ensures that GNATprove’s analysis detects a superset of the overflows that may occur at run time.

Size of ‘Image and ‘Img attributes

To avoid spurious range checks on string operations involving occurrences of the 'Img, 'Image, 'Wide_Image, and 'Wide_Wide_Image attributes, GNATprove makes an assumption about the maximal length of the returned string. If the attribute applies to an integer type, the bounds are the maximal size of the result of the attribute as specified in the language depending of the type’s base type. Otherwise, GNATprove assumes that the length of such a string cannot exceed 255 (the maximal number of characters in a line) times 8 (the maximal size of a Wide_Wide_Character).