Concurrency without toil: a systematic method for parallel program design

Gribomont, E. Pascal

doi:10.1016/0167-6423(93)90007-c

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But this is already the case for data rei cation steps in the development of sequential operations in VDM Jon90] or B. The methodological importance of invariants in concurrency is not new; detailed developments based on invariants can be found {for example{ in CM88,Gri93].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Tractability of Rely/Guarantee Specifications in the Development of Interfering Operations

Collette¹,

Jones²

2000

Proof, Language, and Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UK EPSRC. We thank Ketil St len for his helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this report. We also thank Juan Bicarregui, Yih-Kuen Tsay, and especially Tim Clement for their careful reading of later versions. AbstractVarious forms of assumption/commitment speci cations have been used to specify and reason about the interference that comes from concurrent execution; in particular, consistent and complete proof rules relating to shared state operation speci cations {with rely and guarantee conditions{ have been published elsewhere. This report investigates methodological issues in the formulation of such speci cations, and their way to record design decisions. This work aims at making the use of rely/guarantee conditions more tractable, both at the speci cation level and in the development towards code.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Tractability of Rely/Guarantee Specifications in the Development of Interfering Operations

Collette¹,

Jones²

2000

Proof, Language, and Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Manna and Pnueli [1995, Chapter 1] shows how an invariant for the low-atomicity program can be derived as a refinement itself of an invariant for the high-level program. Other methods for refining a high-atomicity program together with its invariant are given in Gribomont [1990], Gribomont [1993]. Here, each time the program is refined, the invariant that holds · 235 for the refined program is derived systematically from the original program, the refined program, and the invariant that holds for the original program.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesis of concurrent programs for an atomic read/write model of computation

Attie¹

2001

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods for mechanically synthesizing concurrent programs from temporal logic specifications have been proposed by Emerson and Clarke and by Manna and Wolper. An important advantage of these synthesis methods is that they obviate the need to manually compose a program and manually construct a proof of its correctness. A serious drawback of these methods in practice, however, is that they produce concurrent programs for models of computation that are often unrealistic, involving highly centralized system architecture (Manna and Wolper), processes with global information about the system state (Emerson and Clarke), or reactive modules that can read all of their inputs in one atomic step (Anuchitanukul and Manna, and Pnueli and Rosner). Even simple synchronization protocols based on atomic read/write primitives such as Peterson's solution to the mutual exclusion problem have remained outside the scope of practical mechanical synthesis methods. In this paper, we show how to mechanically synthesize in more realistic computational models solutions to synchronization problems. We illustrate the method by synthesizing Peterson's solution to the mutual exclusion problem.An extended abstract containing some of these results was presented at the ACM Symposium on

show abstract

“…However, as explicitly stated in [22], and also demonstrated e.g. in [11,19], the invariant of a reasonably fine-grained version is a complex formula, whose construction can be challenging. Much work has been devoted to invariant construction, adaptation and approximation (see e.g.…”

Section: {#(Affj) = 0} =~ (-At Q4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most techniques rely on fixpoint calculus, implemented as weakest-precondition and strongest-postcondition calculi. These are already present in CAVEAT, and a module for invariant adaptation is planned; its purpose will not be the design of an invariant from scratch, but the incremental adaptation of a coarse-grained invariant into a finer-grained one (see [11] for a detailed presentation of this technique).…”

Section: {#(Affj) = 0} =~ (-At Q4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated verification of Szymanski's algorithm

Gribomont

Zenner

1998

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The algorithm for mutual exclusion proposed by B. Szymanski is an interesting challenge for verification methods and tools. Several full proofs have been described in the literature, but they seem to require lengthy interactive sessions with powerful theorem provers. As far as this algorithm makes use of only the most elementary facts of arithmetics, we conjectured that a simple, non-interactive proof should exist; this paper gives such a proof, describes its development and how an elementaxy tool has been used to complete the verification.

show abstract

Concurrency without toil: a systematic method for parallel program design

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Enhancing the Tractability of Rely/Guarantee Specifications in the Development of Interfering Operations

Enhancing the Tractability of Rely/Guarantee Specifications in the Development of Interfering Operations

Synthesis of concurrent programs for an atomic read/write model of computation

Automated verification of Szymanski's algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About