W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....or non composability of scheduling algorithms. Results in composability are badly needed. Compositionality rules allow to infer a system s properties from its components properties. There exists a rich body of literature for establishing correctness through compositional reasoning [15, 9, 8]. However, most of the existing results deal with the preservation of safety properties. 2.4 Abstraction and Incrementality A basic assumption of component based engineering is that components are characterized by some external specification that abstracts out internal details. However, it is ....

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositonal and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

....of the protocol may easily miss a point in the proof which is also missing in our understanding of the protocol. This was a problem, for example, in otherwise excellent work by Xu and Liskov [32] More arguments in favor of formal verification can be found in the book of de Roever et al. [6]. Clearly, informal proofs may help to construct and to communicate a formal proof. But, informal proofs are not su#cient. In addition to have a verified design pattern for the fault tolerant execution of parallel programs, the purpose of the proof was to develop and to validate the applicability ....

Willem-Paul de Roever, Frank de Boer, Ulrich Hannemann, Jozef Hooman, Yassine Lakhnech, Mannes Poel, and Job Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Springer, 2000. in preparation.

No context found.

de Roever, W.-P., F. S. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel and J. Zwiers, "Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods," Number 54 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

....automation that simplifies the proof process. As our assertion language does. 7 1.3.2 Verification of flowcharts Cees Pierik built a tool for the generation of the resulting formulas, called verification conditions, from flowcharts (see section 2. 3) The corresponding theory is described in [1] and more specifically in [2] The idea of the tool is to have the flowcharts, diagrams that picture statechanges, describe the semantics of some object oriented program. Using assertion labels at control states, conditions can be generated that verify state changes. The tool j2a developed in ....

....is a macro that states that the logical variable argument is a sequence of objects that refers to a linked list. It is defined as ( 1 = i i = z ) z[ i] nil : Node) i z = z[ i] next = z[ i 1] z[ z ] next = nil : Node) this = z[1] z = 1 which states that every object in the sequence that is not the last should point to the next object in the sequence, no object in the sequence should be undefined (null) the last object in the sequence should be the last object in the list, the first object in the sequence ....

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

....p be a local assertion containing local variables #u. If #(#u) #(#u) and z a fresh logical variable, then #, # = G p[z this] i# #, #(#(z) # = L p . 4 The proof system This section presents the assertional proof system to reason about JavaMT programs, formulated in terms of proof outlines [30, 16], i.e. where Hoare style pre and postconditions [17, 21] are associated with each control point. The proof system has to accommodate for dynamic object creation, shared variable concurrency, aliasing, method invocation, synchronization, and, especially, the monitor concept. The following ....

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

....of a property for all reachable states, it suffices to give an inductive proof, i.e. to prove initial satisfaction and preservation under computational steps. To cope with the verification of parallel systems, it is advantageous to exploit the system s parallel structure (cf. for instance [6] for an extensive monograph on the topic) In the present paper we develop an inductive proof method to deal with the parallel composition of hybrid systems, which we prove to be complete. The method covers the shared variable communication, label synchronization, and especially the common ....

....This gives a finite number of verification conditions to check for proving the given correctness criteria of that program. While originally developed in the context of sequential programs, the inductive assertion method serves also as fundamental technique in the analysis of concurrent programs [6]. We extend the inductive assertion method to hybrid systems. Let H = Loc; Var ; Con ; Ini ; Lab; Edg ; Act ; Inv) be a hybrid system. An assertion on a location l is a boolean predicate over V , or equivalently a subset of V , and an assertion network is a subset of the global set = Loc V ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Willem-Paul de Roever, Frank de Boer, Ulrich Hannemann, Jozef Hooman, Yassine Lakhnech, Mannes Poel, and Job Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001. to appear.

No context found.

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.

No context found.

W. P. de Roever. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

No context found.

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hanneman, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Non-compositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

No context found.

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hanneman, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Non-compositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

No context found.

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hanneman, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Non-compositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

No context found.

W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Number 54 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Nov. 2001.

No context found.

Willem-Paul de Roever, Frank de Boer, Ulrich Hannemann, Jozef Hooman, Yassine Lakhnech, Mannes Poel, , and Job Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press, November 2001.

No context found.

W-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Draft book, 1999.

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