Donald I. Good, Richard M. Cohen, Charles G. Hoch, Lawrence W. Hunter, and Dwight F. Hare. Report on the language Gypsy: Version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Certifiable Minicomputer Project, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, September 1978.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....actions before they are introduced as part of the domain specification. So much for relevant research in artificial intelligence. Since von Neumann machines are also problem domains and since plans resemble programs, it behooves us to look carefully into research in mechanical program verification [9, 10, 18]. The work most relevant to this dissertation seems to be the research on formalizing the semantics of individual von Neumann machines such as a microprocessor [11] an assembly language machine [95] a Micro Gypsy (a Pascal like language) machine [122] and various other machines [5] in the ....

D. Good, et al. Report on the language GYPSY version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

.... advanced most notably by McCarthy [38] Floyd [18] and Hoare [22] In the last twenty years, many research projects have focused on investigating the formal, mechanical verification of programs written in higher level programming languages such as Pascal [24] Lisp [6] Fortran [5] and Gypsy [15]. Most of these projects are based on Floyd s inductive assertion method, and are therefore in the same spirit as the early mechanical verification work of King [32] Our work differs from the previous work in that we address the correctness of programs at the machine code level executed on a ....

....has long perplexed the programming language community, and the current theoretical solutions to its semantics are subtle. Many formal program verification systems have deliberately avoided considering this issue by simply working on a language subset with this functional parameter feature excluded [5, 15]. As far as we can tell, handling functional parameters in machine code program proving could be at least as difficult as program proving at higher levels. In this section, we address this important issue in the context of machine code program proving. Our solution is quite intuitive. At the ....

D. Good, et al. Report on the language GYPSY version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

....including the conceptual place of Kit in this stack [Bevier, et al. 89] There are many formal specification languages other than the Boyer Moore logic some of which are supported by mechanical tools. A list of approaches to specification and verification must include Affirm [Gerhart 80] Gypsy [Good, et al. 78] HDM [Robinson Levitt 77] HOL [HOL 87] VDM [Jones 86] and Z [Spivey 88] The purpose of the Kit project was to specify an operating system kernel with a particular process isolation property, and mechanically check the proof of a correct implementation of that specification at the machine ....

D. Good, et. al. Report on the Language GYPSY Version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978. Also available through Computational Logic, Inc., Suite 290, 1717 W. 6th Street, Austin, TX 78703.

....of two main subsystems: a verification condition generator and an automatic theorem prover or proof checker to prove the verification conditions. The first mechanical program verification system was developed by King [36] a student of Floyd s. Many verification systems have been developed since [28, 35, 30, 20, 6]. Using techniques similar to the generation of verification conditions it is possible to prove termination and absence of runtime errors. Consider for example the claim made for the system described in [6] If a FORTRAN subprogram is accepted and proved by the system and the program can be ....

D. Good, et. al. Report on the Language GYPSY Version 2.0. Tech. Rept. ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

....of a compiler for PASCAL, by Polak [47] The total amount of executable code verified in that application is around 3000 lines. The Gypsy Verification Environment (GVE) supports the programming language Gypsy, which is a derivative of Pascal providing a somewhat cleaner semantics and concurrency [29]. The theorem prover used in GVE was adapted from a prover by Bledsoe [4] GVE was used to verify the largest program mechanically verified to date: a communications interface to a computer network [48] The interface consists of over 4200 lines of executable code. Some 2600 verification ....

D. I. Good. The Proof of a Distributed System in Gypsy. Tech. Rept. ICSCA-CMP-30, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1982.

....been advanced by McCarthy [39] Floyd [19] Hoare [23] and others. In the last twenty years, many research projects have focused on investigating the formal, mechanical verification of programs written in higher level programming languages such as Pascal [25] Lisp [6] Fortran [5] and Gypsy [16]. Most of these projects are based on Floyd s inductive assertion method, and therefore in the same spirit as the early mechanical verification work of King [33] Our work differs from all these works in that we address the correctness of programs at the machine code level executed on a widely ....

....has long perplexed the programming language community, and the current theoretical solutions to its semantics are subtle. Many formal program verification systems have deliberately avoided considering this issue by simply working on a language subset with this functional parameter feature excluded. [5, 16] As far as we can tell, handling functional parameter in machine code program proving could be at least as difficult as program proving at higher levels. In this section, we address this important issue in the context of machine code program proving. Our solution is quite intuitive. At the ....

D. Good, et al. Report on the language GYPSY version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

....been advanced by McCarthy [39] Floyd [19] Hoare [23] and others. In the last twenty years, many research projects have focused on investigating the formal, mechanical verification of programs written in higher level programming languages such as Pascal [25] Lisp [6] Fortran [5] and Gypsy [16]. Most of these projects are based on Floyd s inductive assertion method, and therefore in the same spirit as the early mechanical verification work of King [33] Our work differs from all these works in that we address the correctness of programs at the machine code level executed on a widely ....

....has long perplexed the programming language community, and the current theoretical solutions to its semantics are subtle. Many formal program verification systems have deliberately avoided considering this issue by simply working on a language subset with this functional parameter feature excluded. [5, 16] As far as we can tell, handling functional parameter in machine code program proving could be at least as difficult as program proving at higher levels. In this section, we address this important issue in the context of machine code program proving. Our solution is quite intuitive. At the ....

D. Good, et al. Report on the language GYPSY version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

No context found.

Donald I. Good, Richard M. Cohen, Charles G. Hoch, Lawrence W. Hunter, and Dwight F. Hare. Report on the language Gypsy: Version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Certifiable Minicomputer Project, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, September 1978.

No context found.

Donald I. Good, Richard M. Cohen, Charles G. Hoch, Lawrence W. Hunter, and Dwight F. Hare. Report on the language Gypsy: Version 2.0. Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-10, Certifiable Minicomputer Project, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, September 1978.

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