物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Software development and maintenance are costly endeavors. The cost can be reduced if more software defects are detected earlier in the development cycle. This paper introduces the Extended Static Checker for Java (ESC/Java), an experimental compile-time program checker that finds common programming errors. The checker is powered by verification-condition generation and automatic theorem-proving techniques. It provides programmers with a simple annotation language with which programmer design decisions can be expressed formally. ESC/Java examines the annotated software and warns of inconsistencies between the design decisions recorded in the annotations and the actual code, and also warns of potential runtime errors in the code. This paper gives an overview of the checker architecture and annotation language and describes our experience applying the checker to tens of thousands of lines of Java programs.

/pdf/extended-static-checking-for-java-okt67aeqsz.pdf

Extended static checking for Java

コンピュータ・サイエンス : ACM computing surveys

The Spec# programming system is a new attempt at a more cost effective way to develop and maintain high-quality software. This paper describes the goals and architecture of the Spec# programming system, consisting of the object-oriented Spec# programming language, the Spec# compiler, and the Boogie static program verifier. The language includes constructs for writing specifications that capture programmer intentions about how methods and data are to be used, the compiler emits run-time checks to enforce these specifications, and the verifier can check the consistency between a program and its specifications.

/pdf/the-spec-programming-system-an-overview-12860fvmve.pdf

The spec# programming system: an overview

Mojave and the Universe Type System.- The Semantics of Mojave.- Modular Specification and Verification of Functional Behavior.- Modular Specification and Verification of Frame Properties.- Modular Specification and Verification of Type Invariants.- Conclusion.- Formal Background and Notations.- Predefined Type Declarations.- Examples.- Auxiliary Lemmas, Proofs, and Models.

Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs

The automation of verification techniques based on first-order logic specifications has benefitted greatly from verification infrastructures such as Boogie and Why. These offer an intermediate language that can express diverse language features and verification techniques, as well as back-end tools: in particular, verification condition generators.

However, these infrastructures are not well suited to verification techniques based on separation logic and other permission logics, because they do not provide direct support for permissions and because existing tools for these logics often favour symbolic execution over verification condition generation. Consequently, tool support for these logics where available is typically developed independently for each technique, dramatically increasing the burden of developing automatic tools for permission-based verification.

In this paper, we present a verification infrastructure whose intermediate language supports an expressive permission model natively. We provide tool support including two back-end verifiers: one based on symbolic execution, and one on verification condition generation; an inference tool based on abstract interpretion is currently under development. A wide range of existing verification techniques can be implemented via this infrastructure, alleviating much of the burden of building permission-based verifiers, and allowing the developers of higher-level reasoning techniques to focus their efforts at an appropriate level of abstraction.

/pdf/viper-a-verification-infrastructure-for-permission-based-5g2ukcn0do.pdf

Viper: A Verification Infrastructure for Permission-Based Reasoning

Object invariants describe the consistency of object-oriented data structures and are central to reasoning about the correctness of object-oriented software. Yet, reasoning about object invariants in the presence of object references, methods, and subclassing is difficult. This paper describes a methodology for specifying and verifying object-oriented programs, using object invariants to specify the consistency of data and using ownership to organize objects into contexts. The novelty is that contexts can be dynamic: there is no bound on the number of objects in a context and objects can be transferred between contexts. The invariant of an object is allowed to depend on the fields of the object, on the fields of all objects in transitively-owned contexts, and on fields of objects reachable via given sequences of fields. With these invariants, one can describe a large variety of properties, including properties of cyclic data structures. Object invariants can be declared in or near the classes whose fields they depend on, not necessarily in the class of an owning object. The methodology is designed to allow modular reasoning, even in the presence of subclasses, and is proved sound.

/pdf/object-invariants-in-dynamic-contexts-1h4lw0alz1.pdf

Object Invariants in Dynamic Contexts

Object invariants in dynamic contexts

Object-oriented programs with arbitrary object structures are difficult to understand, to maintain, and to reason about. Ownership has been applied successfully to structure the object store and to restrict how references can be passed and used. We describe how ownership relations can be expressed in the Java Modeling Language, JML. These ownership specifications can be checked by standard verification techniques, runtime assertion checking, ownership type systems, or combinations of these techniques. We show that the combination of the lightweight Universe type system and JML specifications is flexible enough to handle interesting implementations while keeping the annotation and checking overhead small. The Universe type system has been implemented in the JML compiler. This integration enables the application of ownership-based verification techniques to programs specified in JML.

/pdf/universes-lightweight-ownership-for-jml-2haavm9j5z.pdf

Peter Müller

Papers

Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs

Viper: A Verification Infrastructure for Permission-Based Reasoning

Object Invariants in Dynamic Contexts

Object invariants in dynamic contexts

Universes: Lightweight Ownership for JML.