Specifying Referential transparency in ACSL










1














I want to find some ACSL annotation that can be applied to a function or function pointer to indicate that it has the property of referential transparency. Some way to say "this function will always return the same value when given the same arguments". So far I haven't found any such way. Can anyone point me to a way to express that?



Maybe some way to refer to an arbitrary logic function? If I could name an unknown logic boolean uknown_function(void* a, void* b) = /* this is unkown */; then I could document a function as having a postcondition that it's result is equal to this arbitrary/unknown logic function?



The larger context is trying to do type-erased comparisons. I want to generally express the concept of "the user has given me void*s to work with and a bool (*)(void const*, void const*) to compare them with, and the user is guaranteeing to me that the function provided really is a strict partial order over whatever those pointers point to." If I had that, then I could start to describe properties of these type-erased objects being sorted, for example.










share|improve this question


























    1














    I want to find some ACSL annotation that can be applied to a function or function pointer to indicate that it has the property of referential transparency. Some way to say "this function will always return the same value when given the same arguments". So far I haven't found any such way. Can anyone point me to a way to express that?



    Maybe some way to refer to an arbitrary logic function? If I could name an unknown logic boolean uknown_function(void* a, void* b) = /* this is unkown */; then I could document a function as having a postcondition that it's result is equal to this arbitrary/unknown logic function?



    The larger context is trying to do type-erased comparisons. I want to generally express the concept of "the user has given me void*s to work with and a bool (*)(void const*, void const*) to compare them with, and the user is guaranteeing to me that the function provided really is a strict partial order over whatever those pointers point to." If I had that, then I could start to describe properties of these type-erased objects being sorted, for example.










    share|improve this question
























      1












      1








      1







      I want to find some ACSL annotation that can be applied to a function or function pointer to indicate that it has the property of referential transparency. Some way to say "this function will always return the same value when given the same arguments". So far I haven't found any such way. Can anyone point me to a way to express that?



      Maybe some way to refer to an arbitrary logic function? If I could name an unknown logic boolean uknown_function(void* a, void* b) = /* this is unkown */; then I could document a function as having a postcondition that it's result is equal to this arbitrary/unknown logic function?



      The larger context is trying to do type-erased comparisons. I want to generally express the concept of "the user has given me void*s to work with and a bool (*)(void const*, void const*) to compare them with, and the user is guaranteeing to me that the function provided really is a strict partial order over whatever those pointers point to." If I had that, then I could start to describe properties of these type-erased objects being sorted, for example.










      share|improve this question













      I want to find some ACSL annotation that can be applied to a function or function pointer to indicate that it has the property of referential transparency. Some way to say "this function will always return the same value when given the same arguments". So far I haven't found any such way. Can anyone point me to a way to express that?



      Maybe some way to refer to an arbitrary logic function? If I could name an unknown logic boolean uknown_function(void* a, void* b) = /* this is unkown */; then I could document a function as having a postcondition that it's result is equal to this arbitrary/unknown logic function?



      The larger context is trying to do type-erased comparisons. I want to generally express the concept of "the user has given me void*s to work with and a bool (*)(void const*, void const*) to compare them with, and the user is guaranteeing to me that the function provided really is a strict partial order over whatever those pointers point to." If I had that, then I could start to describe properties of these type-erased objects being sorted, for example.







      frama-c acsl






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 12 at 7:51









      user1243488

      6025




      6025






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.




          /*@ logic boolean unknown_functionL(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */



          but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.



          Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.



          Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
            – user1243488
            Nov 15 at 7:36










          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53257844%2fspecifying-referential-transparency-in-acsl%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.




          /*@ logic boolean unknown_functionL(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */



          but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.



          Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.



          Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
            – user1243488
            Nov 15 at 7:36















          1














          There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.




          /*@ logic boolean unknown_functionL(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */



          but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.



          Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.



          Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
            – user1243488
            Nov 15 at 7:36













          1












          1








          1






          There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.




          /*@ logic boolean unknown_functionL(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */



          but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.



          Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.



          Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.






          share|improve this answer












          There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.




          /*@ logic boolean unknown_functionL(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */



          but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.



          Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.



          Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 14 at 14:02









          Virgile

          6,824931




          6,824931











          • Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
            – user1243488
            Nov 15 at 7:36
















          • Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
            – user1243488
            Nov 15 at 7:36















          Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
          – user1243488
          Nov 15 at 7:36




          Thank you. RPP looks exciting, and I'm looking forward to it. I was surprised to see the logic-function approach work because I'd had little success locally. But it looks like my frama-c install was a couple years old. I got a chlorine from opam and now that works like you said. I've still got a ways to go, but that looks like exactly what I want.
          – user1243488
          Nov 15 at 7:36

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53257844%2fspecifying-referential-transparency-in-acsl%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

          In R, how to develop a multiplot heatmap.2 figure showing key labels successfully

          Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto