S. King, J. Hammond, R. Chapman, and A. Pryor. Is proof more cost effective than testing? IEEE Trans. on SE, 26(8), 2000. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Automated Generation of High Integrity Test Suites from Graphical .. - Burton (2002) (1 citation) (Correct)
....in which the software operates were accurate and that the system as a whole satisfies the customers expectations. The use of formal methods has long been advocated as a means of improving the devel 13 opment of high integrity systems. Despite evidence to support this advocacy, e.g. HB95, KHCP00] formal methods have still to gain widespread use in the software industry. This limited application of potentially useful verification techniques is due to the high cost of both constructing the specification and performing the proof work, as well as the need for engineers who are both ....
Steve King, Jonathon Hammond, Rod Chapman, and Andy Pryor. Is proof more cost-effective than testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(8):675--686, August 2000.
Industrial Strength Exception Freedom - Peter Amey Roderick (2002) (4 citations) Self-citation (Chapman) (Correct)
....These simplifications reduce static analysis for Storage Error to a simple analysis of worst case stack usage for a non recursive program. While the Examiner does not implement this kind of analysis directly (it is highly compiler and target dependent) specialized tools for the SHOLIS project [7] were constructed to perform this task with relative ease. The size of the activation record for each subprogram and the program s call tree can be directly extracted from the assembler listings produced by a compiler. These data can then be combined to produce worst case stack usage figures using ....
....of the code is enhanced; and, throughout the process we have log files and summaries that document the arguments that we have used. 6. SOME PROJECTS The SPARK approach to exception freedom was first presented nearly ten years ago [1] It was first deployed on a large project (SHOLIS) in 1995 [7] with reasonable success. Following SHOLIS, several significant improvements to the technology were made, most notably: The Examiner s VC Generator was improved to reduce the number and complexity of hypotheses generated for each VC. SPARK95 was developed, incorporating modular types, and ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Steve King, Jonathan Hammond, Roderick Chapman, Andy Pryor. Is Proof More Cost-Effective than Testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Volume 26, Number 8, August 2000.
Industrial Experience with SPARK - Chapman (2000) (4 citations) Self-citation (Chapman) (Correct)
....of SHOLIS could be reproduced overnight with reasonable ease. This realization brings regression proof (as opposed to regression testing ) within reach for new projects a technique we hope to field in future. More information on SHOLIS, and in particular the proof activities, can be found in [4]. The most important finding was that proof (of both Z and code) was significantly more cost effective at finding faults than traditional testing activities. 4. The MULTOS CA The Multi Application Operating System (MULTOS) is a smart card OS that allows several applications to reside on a single ....
King, S., Hammond, J., Chapman, R.C., and Pryor, A. Is Proof More Cost Effective than Testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. August 2000.
On the Principled Design of Object Oriented Programming.. - Barnes, Dobbing, Chapman (2002) Self-citation (Chapman) (Correct)
....always gives rise to the post conditions. The level of proof depends on the information provided in the formal specification. This can vary depending on the aspects of the code that need to be verified; this can vary from the proof of a single invariant right up to full functional behaviour[13]. Proof of absence of run time errors is a special form of formal code verification. This does not require the provision of a formal specification of the program. Instead, formal code verification techniques are used to demonstrate that at every point in the code where a run time error may occur, ....
S. King, J. Hammond, R. Chapman, A. Pryor, Is Proof More Cost-Effective Than Testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 26., No. 8, August 2000, pp 675-685.
Automation for Exception Freedom Proofs - Bill Ellis And (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
S. King, J. Hammond, R. Chapman, and A. Pryor. Is proof more cost effective than testing? IEEE Trans. on SE, 26(8), 2000.
Dissecting Trust and the Assurance-Violation Dynamic - Redwine, Jr. (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
King, Steve, Hammond, Jonathan, Chapman, Rod, and Pryor, Andy. Is Proof More Cost Effective Than Testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26, 8 (August 2000) 675686.
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