Modular verification of higher-order methods with mandatory calls specified by model programs

Shaner, Steve M.; Leavens, Gary T.; Naumann, David A.

doi:10.1145/1297105.1297053

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a loop modifies clause could also be more permissive to allow the loop to make modifications that are later undone (before the procedure returns). This approach was taken in the Krakatoa tool [Marché and Paulin-Mohring 2005]; JML has adopted this by use of its refining statement, which can give arbitrary specifications (including frames) to statements [Shaner et al 2007;Leavens et al 2009]. …”

Section: Flexible Loop Exitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral interface specification languages

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral interface specification languages provide formal code-level annotations, such as preconditions, postconditions, invariants, and assertions that allow programmers to express the intended behavior of program modules. Such specifications are useful for precisely documenting program behavior, for guiding implementation, and for facilitating agreement between teams of programmers in modular development of software. When used in conjunction with automated analysis and program verification tools, such specifications can support detection of common code vulnerabilities, capture of light-weight application-specific semantic properties, generation of test cases and test oracles, and full formal program verification. This article surveys behavioral interface specification languages with a focus toward automatic program verification and with a view towards aiding the Verified Software Initiative-a fifteen-year, cooperative, international project directed at the scientific challenges of large-scale software verification.

show abstract

Section: Flexible Loop Exitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral interface specification languages

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shaner et al [26] studied using gray-box model programs to model higher-order method calls (which can be understood as a variant of techniques from refinement calculus) in JML, and Barnett and Naumann [3] added a friendship system to the Boogie system, with which it is possible to describe some forms of clusters of collaborating objects, including the subject-observer pattern. These works are also non-modular in the above sense, since they require knowing what all of the observers are.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying event-driven programs using ramified frame properties

Krishnaswami

Birkedal

Aldrich

2010

Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Types in Language Design and Implementation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactive programs, such as GUIs or spreadsheets, often maintain dependency information over dynamically-created networks of objects. That is, each imperative object tracks not only the objects its own invariant depends on, but also all of the objects which depend upon it, in order to notify them when it changes.These bidirectional linkages pose a serious challenge to verification, because their correctness relies upon a global invariant over the object graph.We show how to modularly verify programs written using dynamically-generated bidirectional dependency information. The critical idea is to distinguish between the footprint of a command, and the state whose invariants depends upon the footprint. To do so, we define an application-specific semantics of updates, and introduce the concept of a ramification operator to explain how local changes can alter our knowledge of the rest of the heap. We illustrate the applicability of this style of proof with a case study from functional reactive programming, and formally justify reasoning about an extremely imperative implementation as if it were pure.

show abstract

“…Shaner et al [12] address the issue of higher-order method independently of generics. Their approach is based on model programs and is certainly suitable for runtime checking, but it is not for deductive verification: because every instance of, say the sort() method, would need to be re-proved, thus loosing modularity of the verification, hence loosing the advantage of genericity.…”

Section: Related Work Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying generic Java programs

Giorgetti

Marché

Tushkanova

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates the question of modular specification of generic Java classes and methods. We propose extensions to the Krakatoa Modeling Language, a part of the Why platform for proving that a Java or C program is a correct implementation of some specification. The new constructs we propose for the specification of generic Java programs are presented through two significant examples: the specification of the generic method for sorting arrays which comes from the java.util.Arrays class in the Java API, and the specification of the java.util.HashMap class defining a generic hash map and its use for memoization. The key features are the introduction of parametricity both for types and for theories and an instantiation relation between theories. We discuss soundness conditions and their verification.

show abstract

Modular verification of higher-order methods with mandatory calls specified by model programs

Abstract: , "Modular verification of higher-order methods with mandatory calls specified by model programs" (2008). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11193.

Cited by 5 publications

References 30 publications

Behavioral interface specification languages

Behavioral interface specification languages

Verifying event-driven programs using ramified frame properties

Specifying generic Java programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About