This chapter explains the use of assertions to specify a program behaviour and properties expected to hold of the program. It also clarifies the role of assertion-related declarations so that a program can be statically preprocessed with CiaoPP.
CiaoPP starts a preprocessing session from a piece of code, annotated with assertions. The code can be either a complete self-contained program or part of a larger program (e.g., a module, or a user file which is only partial). The assertions annotating the code describe some properties which the programmer requires to hold of the program. Assertions are used also to describe to the static analyzer some properties of the interface of the code being preprocessed at a given session with other parts of the program that code belongs to. In addition, assertions can be used to provide information to the static analyzer, in order to guide it, and also to control specialization and other program transformations.
This chapter explains the use of assertions in describing to CiaoPP: (1) the program specification, (2) the program interface, and (3) additional information that might help static preprocessing of the program.
In the following, the Ciao assertion language is briefly described and heavily used. In The Ciao assertion language, a complete reference description of assertions is provided. More detailed explanations of the language can be found in [PBH00b].
This chapter also introduces and uses properties, and among them (regular) types. See Basic data types and properties, for a concrete reference of (some of) the Ciao properties. See Declaring regular types, for a presentation of the Ciao type language and an explanation on how you can write your own properties and types.
Most of the predicates used below which are not defined belong to the ISO-Prolog standard [DEDC96]. The builtin (or primitive) constraints used have also become more or less de-facto standard. For detailed descriptions of particular constraint logic programming builtins refer for example to the CHIP [COS96], PrologIV [PRO], and Ciao [BCC04] manuals.
Predicate assertions can be used to declare properties of the execution states at the time of calling a predicate and upon predicate success. Also, properties of the computation of the calls to a predicate can be declared.
Assertions may be qualified by keywords check or trust. Assertions qualified with the former---or not qualifed---are known as check assertions; those qualified with the latter are known as trust assertions. Check assertions state the programmer's intention about the program and are used by the debugger to check for program inconsistencies. On the contrary, trust assertions are “trusted” by CiaoPP tools.
They are similar in nature to the postconditions used in program verification. They can be expressed in our assertion language using the basic assertion:
:- success Goal => Postcond.
This assertion should be interpreted as, “for any call of the form Goal which succeeds, on success Postcond should also hold” .
Note that, in contrast to other programming paradigms, calls to a predicate may either succeed or fail. The postcondition stated in a success assertion only refers to successful executions.
Sometimes we are interested in properties which refer not to all invocations of a predicate, but rather to a subset of them. With this aim we allow the addition of preconditions (Precond) to predicate assertions as follows: `Goal : Precond'.
For example, success assertions can be restricted and we obtain an assertion of the form:
:- success Goal : Precond => Postcond.which should be interpreted as, “for any call of the form Goal for which Precond holds, if the call succeeds then on success Postcond should also hold”.
It is also possible to use assertions to describe properties about the calls for a predicate which may appear at run-time. An assertion of the form:
:- calls Goal : Cond.must be interpreted as, “all calls of the form Goal should satisfy Cond”.
Many other properties which refer to the computation of the predicate (rather than the input-output behaviour) are not easily expressible using calls and success predicate assertions only. Examples of properties of the computation which we may be interested in are: non-failure, termination, determinacy, non-suspension, etc.
This sort of properties are expressed by an assertion of the form:
:- comp Goal : Precond + Comp-prop.which must be interpreted as, “for any call of the form Goal for which Precond holds, Comp-prop should also hold for the computation of Goal”. Again, the field `: Precond' is optional.
In order to facilitate the writing of assertions, a compound predicate assertion can be used as syntactic sugar for the above mentioned basic assertions. Each compound assertion is translated into one or several basic assertions, depending on how many of the fields in the compound assertion are given. The compound assertion is as follows.
:- pred Pred : Precond => Postcond + Comp-prop.
Each such compound assertion corresponds to: a success assertion of the form:
:- success Pred : Precond => Postcond.if the pred assertion has a => field (and a : field). It also corresponds to a comp assertion of the form:
:- comp Pred : Precond + Comp-prop.if the pred assertion has a + field (and a : field).
All compound assertions given for the same predicate correspond to a single calls assertion. This calls assertion states as properties of the calls to the predicate a disjunction of the properties stated by the different compound assertions in their : field. Thus, it is of the form:
:- calls Pred : ( Precond1 ; ... ; Precondn ).for all the Precondi in the : fields of (all) the different pred assertions.
Note that when compound assertions are used, calls assertions are always implicitly generated. If you do not want the calls assertion to be generated (for example because the set of assertions available does not cover all possible uses of the predicate) basic success or comp assertions rather than compound (pred) assertions should be used.
:- success qsort(A,B) => list(B).Alternatively, we may require that if qsort is called with a list in the first argument position and the call succeeds, then on success the second argument position should also be a list. This is declared as follows:
:- success qsort(A,B) : list(A) => list(B).The difference with respect to the previous assertion is that B is only expected to be a list on success of predicate qsort/2 if A was a list at the call.
In addition, we may also require that in all calls to predicate qsort the first argument should be a list. The following assertion will do:
:- calls qsort(A,B) : list(A).
The qsort procedure should be able to sort all lists. Thus, we also require that all calls to it that have a list in the first argument and a variable in the second argument do not fail:
:- comp qsort(A,B) : (list(A) , var(B)) + does_not_fail.
Instead of the above basic assertions, the following compound one could be given:
:- pred qsort(A,B) : (list(A) , var(B)) => list(B) + does_not_fail.which will be equivalent to:
:- calls qsort(A,B) : (list(A), var(B)). :- success qsort(A,B) : (list(A), var(B)) => list(B). :- comp qsort(A,B) : (list(A) , var(B)) + does_not_fail.
This will not allow to call qsort with anything else than a variable as second argument. If this use of qsort is expected, one should have added the assertion:
:- pred qsort(A,B) : list(A) => list(B).which, together with the above one, will imply:
:- calls qsort(A,B) : ((list(A), var(B)) ; list(A)).Then it is only required that A be a list.
Whereas each kind of assertion indicates when, i.e., in which states or sequences of states, to check the given properties, the properties themselves define what to check. Properties are used to say things such as “X is a list of integers,” “Y is ground,” “p(X) does not fail,” etc. and in Ciao they are logic predicates, in the sense that the evaluation of each property either succeeds or fails. The failure or success of properties typically needs to be determined at the time when the assertions in which they appear are checked. Assertions can be checked both at compile-time by CiaoPP and at run-time by Ciao itself (after the instrumentation of the program by CiaoPP). In this section we will concentrate exclusively on run-time checking.
A property may be a predefined predicate in the language (such as integer(X)) or constraint (such as X>5). Properties may include extra-logical predicates such as var(X)). Also, expressions built using conjunctions of properties,
Note: Although disjunctions are also supported, we restrict our attention to only conjunctions.
or, in principle, any predicate defined by the user, using the full underlying (C)LP language. As an example, consider defining the predicate sorted(B) and using it as a postcondition to check that a more involved sorting algorithm such as qsort(A,B) produces correct results.
While user-defined properties allow for properties that are as general as allowed by the full source language syntax, some limitations are useful in practice. Essentially, the behaviour of the program should not change in a fundamental way depending on whether the run-time tests are being performed or not. For example, turning on run-time checking should not introduce non-termination in a program which terminates without run-time checking. To this end, it is required that the user ensure that the execution of properties terminate for any possible initial state. Also, checking a property should not change the answers computed by the program or produce unexpected side-effects. Regarding computed answers, in principle properties are not allowed to further instantiate their arguments or add new constraints. Regarding side-effects, it is required that the code defining the property does not perform input/output, add/delete clauses, etc. which may interfere with the program behaviour. It is the user's responsibility to only use predicates meeting these conditions as properties. The user is required to identify in a special way the predicates which he or she has determined to be legal properties. This is done by means of a declaration of the form
:- prop Spec.where Spec is a predicate specification in the form PredName/Arity.
Given the classes of assertions presented previously, there are two fundamental classes of properties. The properties used in the Cond of calls assertions, Postcond of success assertions, and Precond of success and comp assertions refer to a particular execution state and we refer to them as properties of execution states. The properties used in the Comp-prop part of comp assertions refer to a sequence of states and we refer to them as properties of computations.
Basic properties, including instantiation and compatibility state properties, types, and properties of computations (all discussed in Declaring regular types) are documented in Basic data types and properties.
The preprocessing unit is the piece of code that is made available to CiaoPP at a given preprocessing session. Normally, this is a file, but not all the code of a program is necessarily contained in one single file: in order to statically manipulate the code in a file, CiaoPP needs to know the interactions of this code with other pieces of the program---probably scattered over other files---, as well as what the user's interaction with the code will be upon execution. This is also done through the use of assertions.
If the preprocessing unit is self-contained the only interaction of its code (apart from calling the builtin predicates of the language) is with the user. The user's interaction with the program consists in querying the program. The predicates that may be directly queried by the user are entry points to the preprocessing unit.
Entry points can be declared in two ways: using a module declaration specifying the entry points, or using one entry declaration for each entry point. If entry declarations are used, instead of, or in addition to, the module declaration, they can also state properties which will hold at the time the predicate is called.
However, if the preprocessing unit is not self-contained, but only part of a larger program, then other interactions may occur. The interactions of the preprocessing unit include: the user's queries, calls from other parts of the program to the unit code, calls to the unit code from unit code which does not appear explicitely in the unit text, and calls from the unit code to other parts of the program.
First, other parts of the program can call predicates defined in the preprocessing unit. CiaoPP needs to know this information. It must be declared by specifying additional entry points, together with those corresponding to the user's queries.
Second, the preprocessing unit itself may contain meta-calls which may call any unspecified predicate. All predicates that may be called in such a way should be declared also as entry points. Additional entry points also occur when there are predicates defined in the preprocessing unit which can be dynamically modified. In this case the code dynamically added can contain new predicate calls. These calls should be declared also as entry points.
Note that all entry points to the preprocessing unit should be declared: entry points including query calls that the user may issue to the program, or another part of the program can issue to the unit, but also dynamic calls: goals that may be run within the unit which do not appear explicitely in the unit text, i.e., from meta-predicates or from dynamic clauses which may be asserted during execution. In all cases, entry declarations are used to declare entry points.
Note: When the language supports a module system, entry points are implicitely declared by the exported predicates. In this case entry declarations are only used for local predicates if there are dynamic calls.
Third, the unit code may call predicates defined in other parts of the program. The code defining such predicates is termed foreign code, since it is foreign to the preprocessing unit. It is important that CiaoPP knows information about how calls to foreign code will succeed (if they succeed), in order to improve its accuracy. This can be done using trust declarations.
Also, trust declarations can be used to provide the preprocessor with extra information. They can be used to describe calls to predicates defined within the preprocessing unit, in addition to those describing foreign code. This can improve the information available to the preprocessor and thus help it in its task. Trust declarations state properties that the programmer knows to hold of the program.
The builtin predicates is one particular case of predicates the definitions of which are never contained in the program itself. Therefore, preprocessing units never contain code to define the builtins that they use. However, the Ciao Program Precompiler makes no assumptions on the underlying language (except that it is constraint logic programming). Thus, all information on the behaviour of the language builtins should be made available to it by means of assertions (although this does not concern the application programmer who is going to preprocess a unit, rather it concerns the system programmer when installing the Ciao Program Precompiler ).
The rest of this document summarizes how assertions can be used to declare the preprocessing unit interactions. It shows the use of entry and trust declarations in preprocessing programs with CiaoPP.
Note: This manual concentrates on one particular use of the declarations for solving problems related to compile-time program analysis. However, there are other possible solutions. For a complete discussion of these see [BCHP96].
A program preprocessing unit may make use of predicates defined in other parts of the program. Such predicates are foreign to the preprocessing unit, i.e., their code is not in the unit itself. In this case, CiaoPP needs to know which is the effect that such predicates may cause on the execution of the predicates defined in the unit. For this purpose, trust declarations are used.
Foreign code includes predicates defined in other modules which are used by the preprocessing unit, predicates defined in other files which do not form part of the preprocessing unit but which are called by it, builtin predicates
Note: However, builtin predicates are usually taken care of by the system programmer, and the preprocessor, once installed, already “knows” them.
used by the code in the preprocessing unit, and code written in a foreign language which will be linked with the program. All foreign calls (except to builtin predicates) need to be declared.
Note: However, if the language supports a module system, and the preprocessor is used in modular analysis operation mode, trust declarations are imported from other modules and do not need to be declared in the preprocessing unit.
:- trust success Goal : ( Prop, ..., Prop ) => ( Prop, ..., Prop ).where Goal is an atom of the foreign predicate, with all arguments single distinct variables, and Prop is an atom which declares a property of one (or several) of the goal variables.
The first list of properties states the information at the time of calling the goal and the second one at the time of success of the goal. Thus, such a trust assertion declares that for any call to the predicate where the properties in the first list hold, those of the second will also hold upon success of the call.
Simplified versions of trust assertions can also be used, much the same as with entry declarations. See Assertions.
Trust declarations are a means to provide the preprocessor with extra information about the program states. This information is guaranteed to hold, and for this reason the preprocessor trusts it. Therefore, it should be used with great care, since if it is wrong the precompilation of your program will possibly be wrong.
:- trust success p/2 : def * free => def * def. :- trust success p/2 : free * def => free * def.This would allow performing the analysis even if the code for p/2 is not present. In that case the corresponding success information in the annotation can be used (“trusted”) as success substitution.
In addition, trust declarations can be used to improve the results of compile-time program analysis when they are imprecise. This may improve the accuracy of the debugging, possibly allowing it to find more bugs.
Predicate definitions can be augmented, reduced, and modified during program execution. This is done through the database manipulation builtins, which include assert, retract, abolish, and clause. These builtins (with the exception of clause) dynamically manipulate the program itself by adding to or removing clauses from it. Predicates that can be affected by such builtins are called dynamic predicates.
There are at least two possible classes of dynamic predicates which behave differently from the point of view of static manipulation. First, clauses can be asserted and/or retracted to maintain an information database that the program uses. In this case, usually only facts are asserted. Second, full clauses can be asserted for predicates which are also called within the program.
:- data Spec, ..., Spec. :- dynamic Spec, ..., Spec.where Spec is a predicate specification in the form PredName/Arity.
Of course, the preprocessor cannot know of the effect that dynamic clauses added to the definition of a predicate may cause in the execution of that predicate. However, this effect can be described to the preprocessor by adding trust declarations for the dynamic predicates.
In a preprocessing session (at least) one entry point to the preprocessing unit is required. It plays a role during preprocessing similar to that of the query that is given to the program to run. Several entry points may be given. Entry points are given to the preprocessor by means of entry or module declarations.
If the preprocessing unit is a module, only the exported predicates can be queried. If the preprocessing unit is not a module, all of its predicates can be queried: all the unit predicates may be entry points to it. Entry declarations can then be used by the programmer to specify additional information about the properties that hold of the arguments of a predicate call when that predicate is queried.
Note that if the unit is not a module all of its predicates are considered entry points to the preprocessor. However, if the unit incorporates some entry declarations the preprocessor will act as if the predicates declared were the only entry points (the preprocessing session being valid for a particular use of the unit code---that specified by the entry declarations given).
:- entry Goal : ( Prop, ..., Prop ).
where Goal is an atom of the predicate that may be called, with all arguments single distinct variables, and Prop is an atom which declares a property of one (or several) of the goal variables. The list of properties is optional.
There are alternative formats in which the properties can be given: as the arguments of Goal itself, or as keywords of the declaration. For a complete reference of the syntax of assertions, see Assertions.
append(, L, L). append([H|T], L, [H|R]) :- append(T, L, R).
It may be called in a classical way with the first two arguments bound to lists, and the third argument a free variable. This can be annotated in any of the following three ways:
:- entry append(X,Y,Z) : ( list(X), list(Y), var(Z) ). :- entry append/3 : list * list * var. :- entry append(list,list,var).
Assume you have the following program:
p(X,Y):- q(X,Y,Z). q(X,Y,Z):- X = f(Y,Z), Y + Z = 3.Assume that p/2 is the only entry point. If you include the following declaration:
:- entry p/2.or, equivalently,
:- entry p(X,Y).the code will be preprocessed as if goal p(X,Y) was called with the most general call pattern (i.e., as if X and Y may have any two values, or no value at all---the variables being free).
However, if you know that p/2 will always be called with the first argument uniquely defined and the second unconstrained, you can then provide more accurate information by introducing one of the following declarations:
:- entry p(X,Y) : ( def(X), free(Y) ). :- entry p(def,free).
Now assume that p/2 will always be called with the first argument bound to the compound term f(A,B) where A is definite and B is unconstrained, and the second argument of p/2 is unconstrained. The entry declaration for this call pattern is:
:- entry p(X,Y) : ( X=f(A,B), def(A), free(B), free(Y) ).
If both call patterns are possible, the most accurate approach is to include both entry declarations in the preprocessing unit. The preprocessor will then analyze the program for each declaration. Another alternative is to include an entry declaration which approximates both call patterns, such as one of the following two:
:- entry p(X,Y) : free(Y). :- entry p(X,free).which state that Y is known to be free, but nothing is known of X (since it may or may not be definite).
Modules provide for encapsulation of code, in such a way that (some) predicates defined in a module can be used by other parts of the program (possibly other modules), but other (auxiliary) predicates can not. The predicates that can be used are exported by the module defining them and imported by the module(s) which use(s) them. Thus, modules provide for a natural declaration of the allowed entry points to a piece of a program.
:- module(Name, [ Spec,...,Spec ] ).where the module is named Name and it exports the predicates in the different Spec's.
Note that such a module declaration is equivalent, for the purpose of static preprocessing, to as many entry declarations of the form:
:- entry Spec.as there are exported Spec's.
In addition to entry points there are other calls that may occur from within a piece of code which do not explicitely appear in the code itself. Among these are metacalls, callbacks, and calls from clauses which are asserted during program execution.
Metacalls are literals which call one of their arguments at run-time, converting at the time of the call a term into a goal. Predicates in this class are not only call, but also bagof, findall, setof, negation by failure, and once (single solution).
Metacalls may be static, and this kind of calls need not be declared. A static metacall is, for example, once(p(X)), where the predicate being called is statically identifiable (since it appears in the code). On the other hand, metacalls of the form call(Y) are dynamic, since the predicate being called will only be determined at runtime.
Note: However, sometimes analysis techniques can be used to transform dynamic metacalls into static ones.
Callbacks are also metacalls. A callback occurs when a piece of a program uses a different program module (or object) in such a way that it provides to that module the call that it should issue upon return. Callbacks, much the same as metacalls, can be either dynamic or static. Only the predicates of the preprocessing unit which can be dynamically called-back need be declared.
Clauses that are asserted during program execution correspond to code which is dynamically created; thus, the preprocessor cannot be aware of such code during a (compile-time) preprocessing session. The calls that may appear from the body of a clause which is dynamically created and asserted are also dynamic calls.
p(X,...) :- ..., bagof(P,X,L), ...However, you know that, upon execution, only the predicates p/2 and q/3 will be called by bagof, i.e., X will only be bound to terms with functors p/2 and q/3. Moreover, such terms will have all of their arguments constrained to definite values. This information should be given to the preprocessor using the declarations:
:- entry p(def,def). :- entry q(def,def,def).
Assume you have a graphics library predicate menu_create/5 which creates a graphic menu. The call must specify, among other things, the name of the menu, the menu items, and the menu handler, i.e., a predicate which should be called upon the selection of a menu item. The predicate is used as:
top :- ..., menu_create(Menu,0,Items,Callback,), ...but the program is coded so that there are only two menu handlers: app_menu/2 and edit_menu/2. The first one handles menu items of the type app_item and the second one items of the type edit_item. This should be declared with:
:- entry app_menu(gnd,app_item). :- entry edit_menu(gnd,edit_item).
Let a program have a dynamic predicate dyn_calls/1 to which the program asserts clauses, such that these clauses do only have in their bodies calls to predicates p/2 and q/3. This should be declared with:
:- entry p/2. :- entry q/3.Moreover, if the programmer knows that every call to dyn_calls/1 which can appear in the program is such that upon its execution the calls to p/2 and q/3 have all of their arguments constrained to definite values, then the two entry declarations at the beginning of the examples may be used.
To process programs with the Ciao Program Precompiler the following guidelines might be useful:
:- use_package(assertions).to your program.
Add entry declarations for all the predicates that may be dynamically called at such program points.
For example, the preprocessor will notify you during the session of certain program points where a call appears to an unknown (at compile-time) predicate.
Add trust declarations for such predicates.