The 1st Verified Software Competition: Experience Report

Klebanov, Vladimir; Müller, Péter; Shankar, Natarajan; Leavens, Gary T.; Wüstholz, Valentin; Alkassar, Eyad; Arthan, Rob; Bronish, Derek; Chapman, Roderick; Cohen, Ernie; Hillebrand, Mark; Jacobs, Bart; Leino, K. Rustan M.; Monahan, Rosemary; Piessens, Frank; Polikarpova, Nadia; Ridge, Tom; Smans, Jan; Tobies, Stephan; Tuerk, Thomas; Ulbrich, Mattias; Weiß, Benjamin

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21437-0_14

Cited by 58 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rest of the table is split in two parts: the first one contains data about two-step verification; the second one the same data about modular verification. The data reported includes: the amount of specification The examples include: (1) finding the maximum in an array, from the COST 2011 verification competition [6]; (2) computing maximum and sum of the elements in an array, from the VSTTE 2010 verification competition [22]; (3) the two-way sort algorithm of Section 2, from the VSTTE 2012 verification competition [16]; (4) Dikstra's Dutch national flag algorithm [13]; (5) computing the longest common prefix of two sequences, from the FM 2012 verification competition [19]; (6) a priority queue implementation, from Tinelli's verification course [32]; (7) a double-ended queue [23, Vol. 1, Sec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Tschannen

Furia

Nordio

et al. 2014

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The simple and often imprecise specifications that programmers may write are a significant limit to a wider application of rigorous program verification techniques. Part of the reason why non-specialists find writing good specification hard is that, when verification fails, they receive little guidance as to what the causes might be, such as implementation errors or inaccurate specifications. To address these limitations, this paper presents two-step verification, a technique that combines implicit specifications, inlining, and loop unrolling to provide improved user feedback when verification fails. Two-step verification performs two independent verification attempts for each program element: one using standard modular reasoning, and another one after inlining and unrolling; comparing the outcomes of the two steps suggests which elements should be improved. Two-step verification is implemented in AutoProof, our static verifier for Eiffel programs integrated in EVE (the Eiffel Verification Environment) and available online. The Trouble with SpecsThere was a time when formal verification required heroic efforts and was the exclusive domain of a small group of visionaries. That time is now over; but formal techniques still seem a long way from becoming commonplace. If formal verification techniques are to become a standard part of the software development process-and they are-we have to understand and remove the obstacles that still prevent non-specialists from using them.A crucial issue is specification. Program correctness is a relative notion, in that a program is correct not in absolute terms but only relative to a given specification of its expected behavior; in other words, verified programs are only as good as their specification. Unfortunately, many programmers are averse to writing specifications, especially formal ones, for a variety of reasons that mostly boil down a benefit-to-effort ratio perceived as too low. Writing formal specifications may require specialized skills and experience; and the concrete benefits are dubious in environments that value productivity, assessed through simple quantitative measures, more than quality. Why should programmers subject themselves to the taxing exercise of writing specifications in addition to implementations, if there is not much in it for them other than duplicated work?

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Tschannen

Furia

Nordio

et al. 2014

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В настоящее время для экспериментов в нашей системе мы используем програм-мы из соревнования COST IC0701 [7] и 1-го соревнования верифицированного про-граммного обеспечения [11]. Отличительная особенность сравнения эффективности систем верификации состоит в том, что они сравниваются не только по произво-дительности (измеренной в (милли)секундах).…”

Section: пример поиск максимума в массивеunclassified

Automatic C Program Verification Based on Mixed Axiomatic Semantics

Марьясов¹,

Непомнящий²,

Промский³

et al. 2015

Model. anal. inf. sist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…VSTTE 2010 hosted a software verification competition [15]. The evaluation focused on the quality of specifications and the strength of the verification, but does not permit a comparison of the efficiency of verification approaches like the one we present here.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Verification Condition Generation with Symbolic Execution: An Experience Report

Kassios

Müller

Schwerhoff

2012

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There are two dominant approaches for the construction of automatic program verifiers, Verification Condition Generation (VCG) and Symbolic Execution (SE). Both techniques have been used to develop powerful program verifiers. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic experiment has been conducted to compare them. This paper reports on such an experiment. We have used the specification and programming language Chalice and compared the performance of its standard VCG verifier with a newer SE engine called Syxc, using the Chalice test suite as a benchmark. We have focused on comparing the efficiency of the two approaches, choosing suitable metrics for that purpose. Our metrics also suggest conclusions about the predictability of the performance. Our results show that verification via SE is roughly twice as fast as via VCG. It requires only a small fraction of the quantifier instantiations that are performed in the VCG-based verification.

show abstract

The 1st Verified Software Competition: Experience Report

Abstract: Abstract. We, the organizers and participants, report our experiences from the 1st Verified Software Competition, held in August 2010 in Edinburgh at the VSTTE 2010 conference.

Cited by 58 publications

References 11 publications

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Automatic C Program Verification Based on Mixed Axiomatic Semantics

Comparing Verification Condition Generation with Symbolic Execution: An Experience Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About