Ten Years of Hoare's Logic: A Survey—Part I

Apt, Krzysztof R.

doi:10.1145/357146.357150

Cited by 421 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Separation Logic builds on Floyd-Hoare logic (Apt 1981) (henceforth, 'Hoare logic'). Hoare logic developed through the 1970s specifically to reason about the execution of computer programs.…”

Section: Why Separation Logic Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One formative idea is Hoare's development of assertion programs, with the insight that valid program execution can be interpreted as a logical proof from the pre-conditions to the post-conditions (Apt 1981). However, the familiar classical logical connectives-¬, ∨, ∧ and →-and quantifiers-∃ and ∀-did not capture the resource management problems that computer science then found intractable.…”

Section: The Semantics Of Separation Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why Separation Logic Works

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One might poetically muse that computers have the essence both of logic and machines. Through the case of the history of Separation Logic, we explore how this assertion is more than idle poetry. Separation Logic works because it merges the software engineer's conceptual model of a program's manipulation of computer memory with the logical model that interprets what sentences in the logic are true, and because it has a proof theory which aids in the crucial problem of scaling the reasoning task. Scalability is a central problem, and some would even say the central problem, in applications of logic in computer science. Separation Logic is an interesting case because of its widespread success in verification tools. For these two senses of model-the engineering/conceptual and the logical-to merge in a genuine sense, each must maintain their norms of use from their home disciplines. When this occurs, both the logic and engineering benefit greatly. Seeking this intersection of two different senses of model provides a strategy for how computer scientists and logicians may be successful. Furthermore, the history of Separation Logic for analysing programs provides a novel case for philosophers of science of how software engineers and computer scientists develop models and the components of such models. We provide three contributions: an exploration of the extent of models merging that is necessary for success in computer science; an introduction to the technical details of Separation Logic, which can be used for reasoning about other exhaustible resources; and an introduction to (a subset of) the problems, process, and results of computer scientists for those outside the field.

show abstract

Section: Why Separation Logic Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Semantics Of Separation Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Separation Logic Works

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some special purpose logics such as Hoare-Logic [17], Dynamic Logic [18] or even tools such as KeY [19] could be used to formally show this entailment relationship. The fact that restrictive contracts are comparably weak is also illustrated by the presence of the well-known frame problem [20,21].…”

Section: Restrictive Vs Constructive Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definition and Correct Refinement of Operation Specifications

Baar

Marković

Fondement

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Modern incremental and iterative software engineering processes advocate to build software systems by first creating a highly simplified and abstract model of the system which is then moved by applying a series of model improvements toward implementation. Models of software systems at any level of abstraction should contain, besides structural information, a precise description of the expected system behavior. This paper formalizes relations between models of the same system at different levels of abstraction, classifies approaches for describing behavior of system operations, and investigates how these system operation descriptions can be kept synchronized with frequent changes of the system's structure.

show abstract

“…A proof outline is locally correct, if the usual verification conditions [7] for standard sequential constructs hold: The precondition of a multiple assignment must imply its postcondition after the execution of the assignment. For assignments occurring outside of critical sections, ¬critsec expresses the enabledness of the assignment.…”

Section: Local Correctnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Ábrahám-Mumm

Boer

Roever

et al. 2002

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Besides the features of a class-based object-oriented language, Java integrates concurrency via its thread-classes, allowing for a multithreaded flow of control. The concurrency model offers coordination via lock-synchronization, and communication by synchronous message passing, including re-entrant method calls, and by instance variables shared among threads. To reason about multithreaded programs, we introduce in this paper an assertional proof method for JavaMT ("Multi-Threaded Java"), a small concurrent sublanguage of Java, covering the mentioned concurrency issues as well as the object-based core of Java, i.e., object creation, side effects, and aliasing, but leaving aside inheritance and subtyping.

show abstract

Ten Years of Hoare's Logic: A Survey—Part I

Cited by 421 publications

References 40 publications

Why Separation Logic Works

Why Separation Logic Works

Definition and Correct Refinement of Operation Specifications

Verification for Java’s Reentrant Multithreading Concept

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About