A Programming Logic for Sequential Java

Poetzsch-Heffter, Arnd; Müller, Péter

doi:10.1007/3-540-49099-x_11

Cited by 84 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, our paper presents a first assertional proof method for reasoning about threads in Java which is complete in the sense that it forms a basis for extending our proof method to more specific Java-synchronization methods, such as wait(), notify(), and notifyAll(), and the important feature of exception handling [20]. Most papers in the literature focus on sequential subsets of Java [28,10,26,27], [11,31,1,32,33]. Formal semantics of Java, including multithreaded execution, and its virtual machine in terms of abstract state machines is given in [29].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Ábrahám-Mumm

Boer

Roever

et al. 2002

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Besides the features of a class-based object-oriented language, Java integrates concurrency via its thread-classes, allowing for a multithreaded flow of control. The concurrency model offers coordination via lock-synchronization, and communication by synchronous message passing, including re-entrant method calls, and by instance variables shared among threads. To reason about multithreaded programs, we introduce in this paper an assertional proof method for JavaMT ("Multi-Threaded Java"), a small concurrent sublanguage of Java, covering the mentioned concurrency issues as well as the object-based core of Java, i.e., object creation, side effects, and aliasing, but leaving aside inheritance and subtyping.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research concerning Java's proof theory mainly concentrated on various aspects of sequential sublanguages (see e.g. [20,33,27]). This paper presents a proof system for multithreaded Java programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Ábrahám-Mumm

Boer

Roever

et al. 2002

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, it is unsound since it generally weakens the postcondition (even if one requires the new postcondition to imply the original one only for pre-states that satisfy the old precondition [PHM99,Par05]). The second solution does not suffer from that drawback.…”

Section: Definition 3 (Feature Redefinition Rule (Tentative))mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible access control policy for SCOOP

Nienaltowski¹

2009

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThe SCOOP model extends Eiffel to support the construction of concurrent applications with little more effort than sequential ones. The model provides strong safety guarantees: mutual exclusion and atomicity at the routine level, and FIFO scheduling of clients' calls. Unfortunately, in the original proposal of the model (SCOOP_97) these guarantees come at a high price: they entail locking all the arguments of a feature call, even if the corresponding objects are never used by the feature. In most cases, the amount of locking is higher than necessary. Additionally, a client that holds a lock on a given processor cannot relinquish it temporarily when the lock is needed by one of its suppliers. This increases the likelihood of deadlocks; additionally, some interesting synchronisation scenarios, e.g. separate callbacks, cannot be implemented. We propose two refinements of the access control policy for SCOOP: a type-based mechanism to specify which arguments of a routine call should be locked, and a lock passing mechanism for safe handling of complex synchronisation scenarios with mutual locking of several separate objects. When combined, these refinements increase the expressive power of the model, give programmers more control over the computation, and enable more potential parallelism, thus reducing the risk of deadlock

show abstract

“…There are a number of recent articles on Hoare Logics for object-oriented programming (see, e.g. [30,35,20,31,23,9]). The normal form of a program in our paper is similarly to that of [9,30].…”

Section: Law 21mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Relational Model for Object-Oriented Designs

Liu

et al. 2004

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper develops a mathematical characterisation of object-oriented concepts by defining an observation-oriented semantics for an object-oriented language (OOL) with a rich variety of features including subtypes, visibility, inheritance, dynamic binding and polymorphism. The language is expressive enough for the specification of object-oriented designs and programs. We also propose a calculus based on this model to support both structural and behavioural refinement of object-oriented designs. We take the approach of the development of the design calculus based on the standard predicate logic in Hoare and He's Unifying Theories of Programming (UTP). We also consider object reference in terms of object identity as values and mutually dependent methods.

show abstract

A Programming Logic for Sequential Java

Cited by 84 publications

References 8 publications

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Flexible access control policy for SCOOP

A Relational Model for Object-Oriented Designs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About