L. Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems 5, 2 (April 1983), 190-222.  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 ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 5:190--222, 1983.

....important points in the process execution, such as synchronization points and consistent checkpoints. A basic transition represents a sequence of internal operations that moves a machine from one basic state to another. Our interpretation of finite state machines is similar to Lamport s model [3] in that states are clean points and transitions represent operations requiring some time. Composition and Abstraction To enhance adaptability, software designers specify basic machines purely in term of their own sequential operations without describing synchronization with other basic ....

Lamport, Leslie, "Specifying Concurrent Program Modules," ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Sys., Vol. 5, No. 2, April 1983, pp. 190-222.

.... will explore two complementary directions to obtain stronger compositionality results for dicult properties such as schedulability or individual liveness of the processes in the system: rst, to extend and generalize compositionality results, for example by applying assume guarantee reasoning [14], and by disposing of more information about the interaction between components, e.g. by typing their behavior using interface automata [11] Second, to develop modeling guide lines to enable compositional reasoning: in order for the results to fully apply, help in the form of an adapted ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 5:190-222, 1983.

....papers on types and on data abstraction, Borg86 Cunn86 Gogu86 Hend86 Khos86 Lalo86 Lieb86 Mads86 Nguy86 Ossh86 Sand86 Snyd86b Stro86c Wegn86] Concurrency: These papers discuss various mechanisms and formalisms for coping with concurrency (CSP, monitors, etc. The Andrews survey is excellent. [Andr81 Andr83 Bern81 Brin72 Brin73 Brin78 Broo84 Dijk75 Hoar74 Hoar78 Lamp83 Nier87b Shoc82 Silb84 Upfa84] Data Abstraction: These papers explain various aspects of data abstraction. See also papers on languages with data abstraction mechanisms, and some of the papers on types. Gutt77 Ledg77 Smit77a Smit77b] Distribution: Papers on distributed problems are also mixed in with those on concurrency, ....

L. Lamport, "Specifying Concurrent Program Modules", ACM TOPLAS, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 190-222, April 1983.

....essence of that property to be made explicit. Formulas of temporal logic can be interpreted as predicates on sequences of states, and various formulations of such temporal logics have been used for specifying properties called temporal properties of interest to designers of concurrent programs [15, 16, 21, 35]. While there is not general agreement on the details of such a specification language, there is agreement that temporal logic provides a good basis for such a language, and it, or something close to it, is sufficiently expressive. Temporal logic has also been used in proving temporal properties ....

LAMPORT, L. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 6, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190-222.

....in the syntax of temporal logic, this is not at all the case: Even if only , S, and U were allowed, the hierarchy would be exactly the same. Also, if any of the other binary operators suggested in the literature (Kr oger s at next [Kr o87] Lamport s at least as long as [Lam83] or STeP s wait for [MAB 94] were added and taken into account in the above de nition of until since depth ( binary depth ) then the hierarchy would not change either. 2.3 Monoids, Semigroups, and Formal Languages For a complete treatment of the notions presented here, the reader is ....

Leslie Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Programming Lang. Sys., 5(2):190-222, 1983.

....A standard notion of modularity for sequential programs is procedure modular reasoning [17] where a call site of a procedure is analyzed using a precondition postcondition specification of that procedure. But this style of proceduremodular reasoning does not generalize to multithreaded programs [5, 15]. An orthogonal notion of modularity for multithreaded programs is thread modular reasoning [14] which avoids the need to explicitly consider all possible interleavings of threads. This technique analyzes each thread separately using a specification, called an environment assumption, that ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM TOPLAS, 5(2):190-- 222, 1983.

....fewer primitive concepts. It is not necessary to draw distinctions between variables, processes, and systems of processes, and the definitions of composition and abstraction are simplified by avoiding these distinctions. 29 1.4. 3 Temporal Logic Specification Several authors [Hailpern80, Lamport83, Schwartz81] have proposed the use of temporal logic as a specification language and a vehicle for expressing correctness proofs. The use of temporal logic as a sPecification language evolved gradually from its use as an assertion language, that is, as a language for expressing proPerties of ....

Lamport, L., "Specifying Concurrent Program Modules," TOPLAS, 1983.

....main difference to our approach is that we use one logic whereas Fiadeiro and Maibaum propose to establish relationships between different logics. Each logic corresponds to a specific level of abstraction. We come back to this in the conclusions. We are more in the lines of the work presented in [19] which is based on one temporal logic. In [19] the use of the temporal operator next and yesterday is not allowed, since it causes problems when reifying it. In our approach we do not have to be such restrictive since the use of temporal operators is strongly related to object oriented ....

....one logic whereas Fiadeiro and Maibaum propose to establish relationships between different logics. Each logic corresponds to a specific level of abstraction. We come back to this in the conclusions. We are more in the lines of the work presented in [19] which is based on one temporal logic. In [19] the use of the temporal operator next and yesterday is not allowed, since it causes problems when reifying it. In our approach we do not have to be such restrictive since the use of temporal operators is strongly related to object oriented concepts. The temporal formulae we get are directly ....

Lamport, L.: Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 5:190--222, 1983.

....2.2 Generic Non Blocking Data Structures A number of so called universal methods (e.g. Barnes, 1993) Herlihy, 1993) Herlihy et al., 1993) Herlihy et al., 1987) Prakash et al., 1991) for constructing non blocking data structures of any type have been discussed in the literature. (Lamport, 1983) described the first lock free algorithm for the problem of managing a single writer, multiple reader shared variable. Such variables may be used as a basis for developing a wide variety of non blocking data structures but Lamport s work is not generally considered to be a universal method. ....

L. Lamport (1983). Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. ACM Transactions On Programming Languages And Systems, 5(2):190-222.

.... deep compositionality relates not only the syntax, but also the semantics: not only can we combine P and Q into PkQ, but the semantics [ P kQ] of PkQ can be obtained by combining [ P ] and [ Q] A simple model with deep compositionality is that of transition systems with trace semantics [Dil89,Lam93,Lyn96,AH99] In the variable based version of this model, a state is an assignment of values to a set of variables, a trace is a sequence of states, and the semantics [ P ] of a component P consists of the set of all traces that correspond to behaviors of P . If the variables written by P are ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Progamming Languages and Systems, 5:190-222, 1993.

.... of t w propertw39 of int0 8]w39[ conformance, and e 3 Towards a Type Theory forActE0 Object show howcert[L kinds ofindetLw308 [ agent can be viewed astwLB andint;BLLw30 conformant ttf assubtB w Thetw] E0 contE00 betE0 anobject and it client can be expressed intwE0 of liveness andsafPD conditw30 [5][7] Safet condit; expresswhat is allowedt happen, and liveness conditBw3 expresswhat is guaranteedt happen. Much previous work intwE9[L[ specificat w9 hasconcentw39 onspecificat8[ and formalverificat]w ofconcurrent programs. Our goal is lessambitE] w we seekt approximat tp possible ....

L.Lamport "SpecifyingConcurrent Program Modules," ACM TOPLAS, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 190-222, April 1983.

....2 Pi and v 2 D . Silent and active graphs We assume that every family Gamma contains a family of silent graphs Gamma = f v2D fstart (v) exit (v)g j 2 Pig. This models the fact that Gamma may do nothing within a considered reaction. This guarantees a stuttering robustness property [13]. We write Gamma = Gamma n Gamma for the family of active graphs of Gamma. INRIA Bdl, a language of distributed reactive objects 13 Graphical notations An extension of the graphical syntax of gure 4 will be useful to support our discussion on the mathematical semantics of Bdl. In the gure ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. In ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, v. 5(2), p. 190-222. Acm, 1983.

....one to apply model checking only to the underlying modules, which have much smaller state spaces. 3 Note also that while the satisfiability problem for LTL is PSPACE complete [91] the problem is EXPTIME complete for CTL [36,32] and 2EXPTIME complete for CTL [102,34] A key observation, see [77,66,50,93,81], is that in modular verification the specification should include two parts. One part describes the desired behavior of the module. The other part describes the assumed behavior of the system within which the module is interacting. This is called the assume guarantee paradigm, as the ....

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systenms, 5:190--222, 1983.

....of presence) and n (set difference of instants of presence) Stuttering. In the same vein, it should be permitted, for an sts, to do nothing while the environment is possibly working. This feature has been yet identified in the litterature and is known as stuttering invariance or robustness [14, 15]. It is central to tla, where it is understood that a transition with no event at all and no change of states is always legal. For an sts Phi, stuttering invariance is defined as follows : if oe : s 0 ; s 1 ; s 2 ; is a run of Phi, so is oe 0 : s 0 ; 0 ; 0 z 0 ....

L. Lamport, Specifying concurrent program modules, ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Sys., 5(2):190-222, 1983.

....of presence) and n (set difference of instants of presence) Stuttering. In the same vein, it should be permitted, for an sts, to do nothing while the environment is possibly working. This feature has been yet identified in the litterature and is known as stuttering invariance or robustness [11, 12]. It is central to tla, where it is understood that a transition with no event at all and no change of states is always legal. For an sts Phi, stuttering invariance is defined as follows: if oe : s 0 ; s 1 ; s 2 ; is a run of Phi, so is oe 0 : s 0 ; 0 ; 0 z 0 ....

L. Lamport, "Specifying concurrent program modules", ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Sys., 5(2):190-222, 1983.

No context found.

L. Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems 5, 2 (April 1983), 190-222.

No context found.

L. Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules. ACM Transactions on Prog. Logic and Sys. 5, 2 (April 1983) 190-222.

No context found.

Lamport, L. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190--222.

No context found.

Leslie Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules, ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems 5, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190-222.

....[7] In the same vein, GHL can be viewed as another formulation of the methods for reasoning about concurrent programs. It leads to a new way of viewing a concurrent program as maintaining the invariance of a predicate. This, in turn, has led to new specification methods for concurrent programs [14], and we hope it will lead to improved techniques for constructing concurrent programs. Using invariance to reason about concurrent programs is not new, having been proposed by Ashcroft [2] and Keller [11] What GHL does is provide a logic for deriving invariance properties of a program. In this ....

LAMPORT, L. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190-222.

....operations critical section i and critical section j . Allowing the request operations to be nonatomic means that the order of service does not matter (is not specified) if the requests are issued too close together . 5 All the formal specification methods I know of including [4] 5] 8] [11], 13] 14] 15] 16] 17] and [18] specify FCFS with condition (#) although the formal expression of this condition di#ers with the di#erent methods. These di#erences are irrelevant to the fundamental problem with condition (#) To verify that a Blaise program satisfies (#) one must ....

....in [8] 17] or [18] reveals that they are incomplete. From these specifications, one cannot tell whether the operations are initiated by calling a subroutine or by raising a voltage on a wire. A program and a piece of hardware cannot both interact properly with the same environment. Only in [11] is the interface specified, being defined as a simple subroutine calling mechanism, but there was no explanation of why this implementation level detail was introduced into a paper on specification. A complete specification must have two parts: a specification of the module s interface and a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Leslie Lamport. Specifying Concurrent Program Modules, ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems 5, 2 (Apr. 1983), 190-222.

No context found.

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. Progamming Languages and Systems, 5:190--222, 1993.

No context found.

L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Transactions on Prog. Languages and Systems, 5:190-222, 1983.

No context found.

L. Lamport, "Specifying Concurrent Program Modules", ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems , 5(2), 1983, pp. 190-222.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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