Completeness of Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions for Program Verification

Tatsuta, Makoto; Chin, Wei-Ngan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10431-7_3

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems that, at a minimum, we would need to add this connective to our system to have any hope of relative completeness; we would also need to express the weakest termination precondition relative to a given postcondition (cf. [32]). Here, however, we deliberately exclude - * from our assertion language, since our main focus here is on automation, for which - * is well known to cause difficulties (and it is not typically handled by most separation logic provers).…”

Section: Cyclic Termination Proofsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic cyclic termination proofs for recursive procedures in separation logic

Rowe

Brotherston

2017

Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a formal verification framework and tool implementation, based upon cyclic proofs, for certifying the safe termination of imperative pointer programs with recursive procedures. Our assertions are symbolic heaps in separation logic with user defined inductive predicates; we employ explicit approximations of these predicates as our termination measures. This enables us to extend cyclic proof to programs with procedures by relating these measures across the preand postconditions of procedure calls.We provide an implementation of our formal proof system in the CYCLIST theorem proving framework, and evaluate its performance on a range of examples drawn from the literature on program termination. Our implementation extends the current state-of-the-art in cyclic proof-based program verification, enabling automatic termination proofs of a larger set of programs than previously possible.Here List(x) is an inductively defined predicate of separation logic describing null-terminated linked lists with head pointer

show abstract

Section: Cyclic Termination Proofsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic cyclic termination proofs for recursive procedures in separation logic

Rowe

Brotherston

2017

Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ob-viously, completeness depends on the programming language, on the assertion logic and on the set of inference rules. More details can be found in [Loz12], see also related results in [COY07,TCA09] or in [TC14].…”

Section: Results For First-order Separation Logicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation logics and modalities: a survey

Demri

Deters

2015

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like modal logic, temporal logic, or description logic, separation logic has become a popular class of logical formalisms in computer science, conceived as assertion languages for Hoarestyle proof systems with the goal to perform automatic program analysis. In a broad sense, separation logic is often understood as a programming language, an assertion language and a family of rules involving Hoare triples. In this survey, we present similarities between separation logic as an assertion language and modal and temporal logics. Moreover, we propose a selection of landmark results about decidability, complexity and expressive power.

show abstract

Completeness of Separation Logic with Inductive Definitions for Program Verification

Cited by 2 publications

References 17 publications

Automatic cyclic termination proofs for recursive procedures in separation logic

Automatic cyclic termination proofs for recursive procedures in separation logic

Separation logics and modalities: a survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About