Frama-C-discuss mailing list archives

This page gathers the archives of the old Frama-C-discuss archives, that was hosted by Inria's gforge before its demise at the end of 2020. To search for mails newer than September 2020, please visit the page of the new mailing list on Renater.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Frama-c-discuss] WP plugin report incorrect

> On 05 Oct 2015, at 17:32, Loïc Correnson <loic.correnson at> wrote:
> Your function *is* doing something, and the post-condition is exactly your loop invariant with (i == end), hence it finally holds.
> 	L.

But shouldn’t WP be unable to prove the loop invariant if the loop body is empty? The `swap(a+i, a+i)’ effectively does nothing, you can just comment it out. You can go even further and remove everything inside the loop, leaving us with:

 @ requires end >= start >= 0;
 @ requires \valid(a+(start..end-1));
 @ assigns a[start..end-1];
 @ ensures \forall integer m; (start <= m < end) ==> a[m] <= a[end-1];
 @ ensures Permut{Old,Here}(a, start, end-1);
void bub_max(int* a, int start, int end) {
   @ loop assigns i, a[start..end-1];
   @ loop invariant \forall integer m; (start <= m <= i) ==> a[m] <= a[i];
 for (int i = start; i < end-1; i++) {
    // do nothing

which still verifies. If I completely remove the loop and thus the invariant, it doesn’t verify. How can it possibly prove the loop invariant? As far as I understand the semantics of the loop invariant, this should not hold.