Thomas Ball and Sriram Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Veri- cation, July 2000.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....would be difficult to imagine handling the FLASH protocol implementation without this flexibility. Bandera has not been successfully applied to examples comparable in complexity to FLASH protocols. The SLAM project at Microsoft Research extracts a program with only boolean variables from C code [2, 3]. These variables represent boolean conditions in the original code. This program is model checked, and the resulting counterexamples are verified using symbolic execution and decision procedures. If a counterexample is found to be a false alarm, constraints are added to the boolean program to ....

T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proc. of the Workshop on Advances in Verification (with CAV

....be difficult to imagine handling the FLASH protocol implementation without this flexibility. Bandera has not been successfully applied to examples comparable in complexity to the FLASH protocols. The SLAM project at Microsoft Research extracts a program with only boolean variables from C code [2, 3]. These variables represent boolean conditions in the original code. This program is model checked, and the resulting counterexamples are verified using symbolic execution and decision procedures. If a counterexample is found to be a false alarm, constraints are added to the boolean program to ....

T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proc. of the Workshop on Advances in Verification (with CAV 2000), 2000.

....the property. The former are of interest to a user, while the latter are a distraction to the user, especially if spurious results occur in large numbers. Several approaches have been proposed recently for analyzing the feasibility of counter examples of abstracted transition system models [5, 3, 4]. While our work shares much in common with these approaches, it is distinguished from them in four ways: i) it treats the abstraction of the run time system scheduler and the property to be checked as well as the program s data, ii) the feasibility of a counter example is judged against the ....

....(whose state space is sketched in Figure 2) Black circles represent states where some assertion is violated. Dashed lines represent transitions that refer to choose, while solid lines refer to instructions class App public static void main( 1] new AThread( start( 2] int i=0; [3] while(i 2) 4] assert( Global.done) 5] i ; class AThread extends Thread public void run( 6] Global.done=true; class App public static void main( new AThread( start( int i=Signs.ZERO; while(Signs.lt(i,Signs.POS) assert( Global.done) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

T. Ball and S.K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proc. of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, July 2000.

....states explicitly, it is able to handle more dynamic behavior such as process creation. For speed, it compiles code that evaluates the next state function. By contrast, Ketchum represents its states implicitly and evaluates the next state by simulating an in memory netlist. Ball and Rajamani [2, 3] take a hybrid approach where they represent a program s control flow explicitly but the states at each control point implicitly. They use an interprocedural dataflow analysis algorithm from the compiler community to handle recursion. 2 The Synthesis Procedure Figure 1 shows how the synthesis ....

Thomas Ball and Sriram K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with Boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, Chicago, USA, July 2000.

....are of interest to a user, while the latter are a potentially significant distraction to the user, especially if such spurious results occur in large numbers. Several approaches have been proposed recently for analyzing the feasibility of counter examples of abstracted transition system models [5, 3, 4]. While our work shares much in common with these approaches, it is distinguished from all of them in three ways: i) it treats the abstraction of both a program s control and data, as well as the run time system scheduler and the property to be checked, ii) the feasibility of a counter example ....

.... is introduced through method lt that implements the abstract operation for : after one pass through the while loop, the abstract value of i becomes pos and the value returned by Signs.lt(i,Signs.POS) can class App public static void main( 1] new AThread( start( 2] int i=0; [3] while(i 2) 4] assert( Global.done) 5] i ; class AThread extends Thread public void run( 6] Global.done=true; class App public static void main( new AThread( start( int i=Signs.ZERO; while(Signs.lt(i,Signs.POS) assert( Global.done) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

T. Ball and S.K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proc. Workshop on Advances in Verification, July 2000.

....type, for a given concrete variable. We have already explored extensions to BASL to accommodate this. Our approach to interpreting counter examples is efficient, but it can miss feasible counter examples on which non determinism occurs. Other approaches, such as those based on symbolic execution [1] and theorem proving [2] are more expensive but more complete alternatives. We plan on pursuing comparisons between these approaches to understand the cost and precision tradeoffs. 10 10. Conclusions We described a collection of program analyses that aid users in abstracting Java programs to ....

T. Ball and S. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, July 2000.

....variables for a given concrete variable. We have already explored extensions to BASL to accommodate this. Our approach to interpreting counter examples is efficient, but it can miss counter examples on which non determinism occurs. Other approaches, such as those based on symbolic execution [1] and theorem proving [2] are more expensive but more complete alternatives. We plan on pursuing comparisons between these approaches to understand the cost and precision tradeoffs. 10 CONCLUSIONS We described a collection of program analyses that aid users in abstracting Java programs to reduce ....

T. Ball and S. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, July 2000.

....variables for a given concrete variable. We have already explored extensions to BASL to accommodate this. Our approach to interpreting counter examples is efficient, but it can miss counter examples on which non determinism occurs. Other approaches, such as those based on symbolic execution [1] and theorem proving [2] are more expensive but more complete alternatives. We plan on pursuing comparisons between these approaches to understand the cost and precision tradeoffs. 10 CONCLUSIONS We described a collection of program analyses that aid users in abstracting Java programs to reduce ....

T. Ball and S. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, July 2000.

No context found.

Thomas Ball and Sriram Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Veri- cation, July 2000.

No context found.

Thomas Ball, Sriram K. Rajamani. Checking Temporal Properties of Software with Boolean Programs. Software Productivity Tools, Microsoft Research, 2000.

No context found.

T. Ball, S.Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. 311

No context found.

T. Ball and S. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, 2000.

No context found.

T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Workshop on Advances in Veri cation (with CAV 2000.

No context found.

T. Ball and S. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Verification, 2000.

No context found.

Thomas Ball, Sriram K. Rajamani. Checking Temporal Properties of Software with Boolean Programs. Software Productivity Tools, Microsoft Research, 2000.

No context found.

T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. Checking temporal properties of software with boolean programs. In Workshop on Advances in Verification (with CAV 2000.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC