Bug #7795
Type constraints option for LA theories
0%
Description
Following Grigory answer, this code is a test for the assertion ordering than for the type constraints: assuming a >= 0 and b >= 0 we can easily derive that c >= 0.
The original code, suppose to run with type_constraints 1 and results in UNSAT. We can run the loop till 10 (no need for so many iterations). To prove claim 1 and 2 we need type-constraints 1, and using claim 1+2 we can prove claim 3 (I think via claims-opt option).
Older version of type-constraints use to work well. I think not all the added type-constraints are in the end added to the SMT query (can be the remove of incrementality).
=========================
The code:
int sum ()
{
int s=0;
unsigned n;
for (int i = 0; i <10; i++)
{
n = nondetUInt();
s=s+n;
}
return s;
}
int main()
{
int a,b,c;
a=sum();
assert(a>=0);
b=sum();
assert(b>=0);
c=a+b;
assert(c>=0);
}
Please add this test in the end to the regression test with reference to TACAS17 paper.
History
#1 Updated by Karine Even Mendoza over 5 years ago
type-constraints 0: does nothing
type-constraints 1: adds bounds to non-det declaration, that is
char a;
char b = a + 1;
(and (=< 128 a#0) (< a#0 128))
type-constraints 2: adds bounds to non-det declaration and add assert to other vars (to check overflow), that is
char a;
char b = a + 1;
assert (a < b);
> (and (and (=< 128 a#0) (< a#0 128)) // assume
(not (and
(< a b) // original assert
(and (=< 128 b#0) (< b#0 128)) // additional assert from type_constraints 2
))
// KE: I hope I am not wrong with this encoding, but the idea is that we add the constraints to the assert encoding and check its not (as if it were part of the assert :
assert(a < b && b.is_in_bounds);)
We can also run older version to see how it use to work.
#2 Updated by Martin Blicha over 5 years ago
The example is missing function declaration.
unsigned int nondetUInt();
With that, the assertions are verified with type-constraints 1 and overflow is detected with type-constraints 2, as expected.