F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....interpretation was shown [10,12] to be very useful to understand, organize and synthesize proof methods for program veri cation. We consider here one speci c approach to the generation of abstract interpretation based partial correctness conditions [16] which is used also in abstract debugging [1,5,2]. The aim of veri cation is to de ne conditions which allow us to formally prove that a program behaves as expected, i.e. that the program is correct w.r.t. a given speci cation, a description of the program s expected behavior. The ideas behind this approach are the following. An element ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In M. Kamkar, editor, Proceedings of the AADEBUG'97, pages 155-169, 1997.

....transformation which compiles pattern matching into case expressions , and we report some experimental benchmarks. We also present an e#ective methodology which is based on abstract interpretation. We approximate the intended specification of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [24,23,20], we use over and under specifications to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test we can determine ....

....semantics we consider the success set semantics. Since we consider two di#erent semantics # (R) in the sequel we also distinguish two di#erent intended semantics: ca and . While is the reference semantics from a programmer perspective, is suitable for technical reasons [20], as we explain in the following. Figure 1 below summarizes our first definition. R. i) is partially correct w.r.t. ca . ii) is complete w.r.t. # (R) iii) is totally correct w.r.t. ca . If a program contains errors, these are signalled by corresponding ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997.

....transformation which compiles pattern matching into case expressions, and we report some experimental benchmarks. We also present an effective methodology which is based on abstract interpretation. We approximate the intended specification of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [23,22,19], we use over and under specifications :Z and :Z to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test we can ....

....semantics we consider the success set semantics. Since we consider two different semantics o;a(T) and (T) in the sequel we also distinguish two different intended semantics: Zca and Z. While Zca is the reference semantics from a programmer perspective, Z is suitable for technical reasons [19], as we explain in the following. Figure 1 below summarizes our first definition. Definition 4.1 Let gca be the specification of the intended success set se mantics for T. i) T is partially correct w.r.t. ii) T is complete w.r.t. ga, if (iii) T is totally correct w.r.t. If a program ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszyfiski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the $rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997.

....our work both for bottom up as well as top down abstract debugging of mixed functional logic code. We also present a novel ecient methodology which is based on abstract interpretation in [1] We proceed by approximating the intended speci cation of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [9, 8, 6], we use positive and negative speci cations I and I to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test we can ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997. 9

....it was shown to be very useful to understand, organize and synthesize proof methods for program veri cation. In particular, we are interested in one speci c approach to the generation of abstract interpretation based partial correctness conditions [19,22] which is used also in abstract debugging [1,6,2]. The aim of veri cation is to de ne conditions which allow us to formally prove that a program behaves as expected, i.e. that the program is correct w.r.t. a given speci cation, a description of the program s expected behavior. In order to formally prove that a program behaves as expected, we ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In M. Kamkar, editor, Proceedings of the AADEBUG'97, pages 155-169. Linkoping University, 1997.

....the intended speci cation I of a program R, we can check the correctness of R by a single step of this operator. We also present an ecient methodology which is based on abstract interpretation. We proceed by approximating the intended speci cation of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [14, 13, 11], we use over and under speci cations I and I to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test we can determine ....

....the program that speci es the intended semantics. In the following, we consider I = lfp(T ] I ) i.e. we consider the abstract success set that we have de ned in previous section as overapproximation of the success set of a program. We can consider any of the sets de ned in the works of [11, 13] as underapproximation of I. Alternatively, we can simply take the set which results from a nite number of iterations of the T I function (the concrete operator) Let us illustrate this method by an example. Example 5. Let us consider the following program, which should order a list of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated DebuggingAADEBUG '97, pages 155-170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997.

....use of our work for both bottom up as well as top down abstract debugging of mixed functional logic code. We also present a novel, ecient methodology which is based on abstract interpretation. We proceed by approximating the intended speci cation of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [17, 16, 11], we use over and under speci cations I and I to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test we can determine ....

....be the (program that speci es the) intended semantics. In the following, we consider I = lfp(T ] I ) i.e. we consider the abstract success set that we have de ned in previous section as overapproximation of the success set of a program. We can consider any of the sets de ned in the works of [11, 16] as underapproximation of I. Alternatively, we can simply take the set which results from a nite number of iterations of the T I function (the concrete operator) Let us illustrate this method by an example. Example 4. Let us consider a (wrong) program R which should compute the last element of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997.

....of our work both for bottom up as well as top down abstract debugging of mixed functional logic code. We also present a novel efficient methodology which is based on abstract interpretation. We proceed by approximating the intended specification of the success set. Following an idea inspired in [16, 15, 10], we use positive and negative specifications I and I Gamma to correctly over (resp. under ) approximate the intended semantics. We then use these two sets respectively for the functions in the premises and the consequence of the immediate consequence operator, and by a simple static test ....

....the abstract success set that we have defined in previous section. For the sake of simplicity, when it is clear from the context, we use the same notation for an abstract program I ] and its fixpoint semantics. As underapproximation of I we can consider any of the sets defined in the works of [10, 15]. Alternatively, we can simply take the set which results from a finite number of iterations of the T I function (the concrete operator) Let us illustrate this method by an example. Example 4. Let us consider a (wrong) program R which should compute the last element of a list. 1) last( X] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M Hermenegildo, J. Maluszy'nski, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170. U. of Linkoping Press, 1997.

....abstractions. In particular, in the next section, we will introduce an upward approximation and a downward approximation of NGFFP , both somehow related to depth k abstraction. The idea of considering upward and downward approximations for veri cation and debugging has recently been proposed in [6]. In Section 5, we will apply this idea by using the upward approximation of the least xpoint semantics and the downward approximation of the T ff P # semantics. 4 Towards e ective approximations of lfp(T ff P ) and T ff P # The semantics of Section 2 is not decidable. In order to ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynsky, and G. Puebla. On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs. In Mariam Kamkar, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Automatic Debugging, AADEBUG'97, 1997.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Int'l WS on Automated Debugging{ AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....For example, even though they are used for different purposes, the first three contexts above have in common that assertions express properties which should hold (intended properties) while the last two ones refer to properties which actually hold (actual properties) for the program. The study in [4] provides a theoretical basis for the combination of tools which deal with intended and actual properties and the assertion language we propose. The aim of this document is to serve as a basis for the design of an assertion language which suffices for the purpose of debugging in the context of ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....such as Godel [30] or Mercury [42] and in traditional functional languages) But here, and encouraged by the capabilities of the currently available abstract interpreters, we depart in several ways from the traditional approaches. We start by recalling some classical definitions (see, e.g. [10]) in program validation and debugging. Given a program P , we denote by I the intended semantics for P , i.e. the specification for P . We denote by [ P ] the actual semantics of the current implementation of program P . Note that we do not preclude the use of one semantics or another. The ....

....especially for parts of the program for which there are no check assertions. These assertions will have the status true and can be visually inspected by the user for checking correctness. 3 As a consequence of our assumptions, the overall framework needs to deal throughout with approximations [10,15,28]. Thus, while the system can be complete with respect to statically decidable properties (e.g. certain type systems) it cannot be complete in general, and analysis may or may not be able to prove in general that a given assertion holds. The overall operation of the system will be sometimes ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....in the program, i.e. the assertions are optional. In particular, we do not wish to limit the programming language or the language of assertions unnecessarily in order to make the assertions statically decidable. Consequently, the proposed framework needs to deal throughout with approximations [2]. The framework we propose (see [4] is aimed at detecting deviations of the program behavior (symptoms) w.r.t. the given assertions, either statically (at compile time) or dynamically (at run time) Our approach is strongly motivated by the availability of analyzers for constraint logic programs ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....For example, even though they are used for di erent purposes, the rst three contexts above have in common that assertions express properties which should hold (intended properties) while the last two ones refer to properties which actually hold (actual properties) for the program. The study in [4] provides a theoretical basis for the combination of tools which deal with intended and actual properties and the assertion language we propose. The aim of this document is to serve as a basis for the design of an assertion language which suces for the purpose of debugging in the context of ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....in the program, i.e. the assertions are optional. In particular, we do not wish to limit the programming language or the language of assertions unnecessarily in order to make the assertions statically decidable. Consequently, the proposed framework needs to deal throughout with approximations [6, 11, 20]. It is imperative that such approximations be performed in a safe manner, in the sense that if an error (more formally, a symptom) is agged, then it is indeed a violation of the speci cations. However, while the system can be complete with respect to statically decidable properties (e.g. ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging{AADEBUG'97, pages 155-170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....used in languages such as Godel [24] or Mercury [36] and in functional languages) But here, and encouraged by the capabilities of the currently available abstract interpreters, we depart in several ways from the traditional approaches. We start by recalling some classical definitions (see, e.g. [10]) in program validation and debugging. Given a program P , we denote by I the intended semantics for P , i.e. the specification for P . We denote by [ P ] the actual semantics of the current implementation of program P . We say that ffl P is partially correct w.r.t. I iff [ P ] I. ffl P is ....

....and Debugging for parts of the program for which there are no check assertions. These assertions will have the status true and can be visually inspected by the user for checking correctness. 2 As a consequence of our assumptions, the overall framework needs to deal throughout with approximations [10, 14, 22]. Thus, while the system can be complete with respect to statically decidable properties (e.g. certain type systems) it cannot be complete in general, and analysis may or may not be able to prove in general that a given assertion holds. The overall operation of the system will be sometimes ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155-- 170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

....in the program, i.e. the assertions are optional. In particular, we do not wish to limit the programming language or the language of assertions unnecessarily in order to make the assertions statically decidable. Consequently, the proposed framework needs to deal throughout with approximations [6, 10, 17]. It is imperative that such approximations be performed in a safe manner, in the sense that if an error (more formally, a symptom) is flagged, then it is indeed a violation of the specifications. However, while the system can be complete with respect to statically decidable properties (e.g. ....

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging--AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

No context found.

F. Bueno, P. Deransart, W. Drabent, G. Ferrand, M. Hermenegildo, J. Maluszynski, and G. Puebla. On the Role of Semantic Approximations in Validation and Diagnosis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 3rd. Int'l Workshop on Automated Debugging-- AADEBUG'97, pages 155--170, Linkoping, Sweden, May 1997. U. of Linkoping Press.

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