2008
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-88059-2_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proving Properties of Lazy Functional Programs with Sparkle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, two functional specifications, describing the ISA and the MA, are automatically generated from their SysML models taken as an XMI file. The resulting specifications, which are both verifiable through CLEAN theorem prover (De Mol, MJ, 2008) (De Mol, Plasmeijer & Van Eekelen, 2007 and executable, will be used for three purposes: functional simulation, formal verification, and further design synthesis (Netlist generation). The proposed design flow is presented in Figure 1.…”
Section: Design Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, two functional specifications, describing the ISA and the MA, are automatically generated from their SysML models taken as an XMI file. The resulting specifications, which are both verifiable through CLEAN theorem prover (De Mol, MJ, 2008) (De Mol, Plasmeijer & Van Eekelen, 2007 and executable, will be used for three purposes: functional simulation, formal verification, and further design synthesis (Netlist generation). The proposed design flow is presented in Figure 1.…”
Section: Design Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative, more traditional, approach would be to define a semantics in a common mathematical style, state properties in logic, and formally prove these properties. Using a proof assistant like COQ [23] or SPARKLE [14] for this purpose requires a transformation of the semantics to the language of the proof assistant. In the past we have used this approach for the iData system [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%