Automatic Timing Model Generation by CFG Partitioning and Model Checking

Wenzel, Ingomar; Rieder, Bernhard; Kirner, Raimund; Puschner, Peter

doi:10.1109/date.2005.76

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formal model of the program needed for the model checker is automatically derived from the source code. Code optimizations have to be performed to improve the performance of the formal test-data generation [WRKP05a]. This approach provides for a given subpath in a program segment either the test data to trigger its execution or the information that this subpath is infeasible.…”

Section: Employed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The worst-case execution-time problem—overview of methods and survey of tools

Wilhelm

Engblom²,

Ermedahl

et al. 2008

ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.

1,460

1,029

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The determination of upper bounds on execution times, commonly called WorstCase Execution Times (WCETs), is a necessary step in the development and validation process for hard real-time systems. This problem is hard if the underlying processor architecture has components such as caches, pipelines, branch prediction, and other speculative components. This article describes different approaches to this problem and surveys several commercially available tools and research prototypes.

show abstract

Section: Employed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To approach a full subpath coverage within each program segment, a formal test-data generation method based on model checking is used [WRKP05a,WRKP05b]. However, to compensate the high computation cost of formal test-data generation, a three-step approach is used:…”

Section: Employed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The worst-case execution-time problem—overview of methods and survey of tools

Wilhelm

Engblom²,

Ermedahl

et al. 2008

ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.

1,460

1,029

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are static WCET analysis approaches [18,58] and measurement-based timing analysis approaches [67,69] based on EPET.…”

Section: Epet (Path-oriented)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond loop bounds: comparing annotation languages for worst-case execution time analysis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worst-case execution time (WCET) analysis is concerned with computing a precise-as-possible bound for the maximum time the execution of a program can take. This information is indispensable for developing safety-critical real-time systems, e. g., in the avionics and automotive fields. Starting with the initial works of Chen, Mok, Puschner, Shaw, and others in the mid and late 1980s, WCET analysis turned into a well-established and vibrant field of research and development in academia and industry. The increasing number and diversity of hardware and software platforms and the ongoing rapid technological advancement became drivers for the development of a wide array of distinct methods and tools for WCET analysis. The precision, generality, and efficiency of these methods and tools depend much on the expressiveness and usability of the annotation languages that are used to describe feasible and infeasible program paths. In this article we survey the annotation languages which we consider formative for the field. By investigating and comparing their individual strengths and limitations with respect to a set of pivotal criteria, we provide a coherent overview of the state of the art. Identifying open issues, we encourage further research. This way, our approach is orthogonal and complementary to a recent approach of Wilhelm et al. who provide a thorough survey of WCET analysis methods and tools that have been developed and used in academia and industry.Keywords Worst-case execution time (WCET) analysis · Annotation languages · Path-oriented, constraint-oriented, and hierarchy-oriented WCET annotation languages · WCET annotation language challenge MotivationComputing the time that the execution of a program can take in the worst case is challenging. It requires to cope with analysis problems that are computationally intractable or undecidable. Tools and methods for worst-case execution time analysis (WCET) thus usually content themselves to computing an upper bound of the actual WCET. The precision, generality, and efficiency of these tools and methods depend much on the accurate description and identification of feasible and infeasible program paths. A program path is feasible, 123 412 R. Kirner et al. if there is an actual program execution taking this path; it is infeasible otherwise. In practice, this information is computed by fully automatic program analyses, where possible; it is manually provided by application programmers otherwise. In both cases this requires a dedicated language in order to annotate this information and to pass it on to a subsequent WCET analysis. Such a language is commonly called an annotation language. Over the past two decades, an array of conceptually quite diverse annotation languages has been proposed to support the needs of different WCET analysis methods and tools.In this article, we present a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the various approaches for WCET annotation languages. This acts on our suggestion of the WCET annotation language challenge [32] comple...

show abstract

“…MTime is a research prototype from the Real-Time Systems Group at Vienna University of Technology (TUVienna) [42] and [41]. MTime supports the processor Motorola HCS12 [15] with the COSMIC compiler [8].…”

Section: Mtimementioning

confidence: 99%

The worst-case execution time tool challenge 2006

Tan

2009

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first international Worst Case Execution Time (WCET) Tool Challenge in 2006 used benchmark programs to evaluate academic and commercial WCET tools. It aimed to study the state-of-the-art in WCET analysis. The WCET Tool Challenge comprised two parallel evaluation approaches: an internal evaluation by the respective tool developers and an external test by a neutral person of an independent institute. The latter was conducted by the author of this paper. Focusing on the external test, we describe the rules, benchmarks, participants and discuss the obtained results.

show abstract

Automatic Timing Model Generation by CFG Partitioning and Model Checking

Cited by 45 publications

References 7 publications

The worst-case execution-time problem—overview of methods and survey of tools

The worst-case execution-time problem—overview of methods and survey of tools

Beyond loop bounds: comparing annotation languages for worst-case execution time analysis

The worst-case execution time tool challenge 2006

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About