Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....exist in the real world. In the causal domain however, it is possible to determine if a given global state occurs [1, 6, 7, 3, 14] Despite the advantages of the causal domain, it is common in the research community to use the time domain to specify and prove properties of distributed programs [10, 12]. A classical example is distributed mutual exclusion in which the absence of violation of mutual exclusion is specified as 2: CS 1 CS 2 ) That is, there is no time at which CS 1 and CS 2 are both true. In our method, programs are specified by documenting the relationship between states which ....

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

....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 of concurrent programs [22, 25, 29, 31]. Here, a program is regarded as defining a collection of temporal logic axioms. The programmer proves that a program satisfies some property of interest by using these axioms along with program independent axioms and inference rules of temporal logic [23] to show that the temporal formula ....

OWICKI, S.S., AND LAMPORT) L. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4, 3 (July 1982), 455-496.

....is no guarantee that the component fault tolerant actions will terminate; neither the action statement nor the recovery protocol of a fault tolerant action can be guaranteed to run without interruption, and so the recovery protocol could continually restart. Moreover, such liveness properties [16] cannot even be expressed in a Hoarestyle programming logic, like the one above. Thus, we must resort to informal means to argue that a program will terminate in a timely manner. Presumably, at some point in the future it will be possible to formalize such arguments. Harter and Bernstein [7] ....

....programming logic, like the one above. Thus, we must resort to informal means to argue that a program will terminate in a timely manner. Presumably, at some point in the future it will be possible to formalize such arguments. Harter and Bernstein [7] describe extensions to temporal logic [16] that allow construction of a proof that a program will meet some specific response time goals. That work would have to be extended to deal with stochastically defined events for use in this context. For a given execution of a program S on a fault free processor, let t(s) be the maximum length of ....

OwIcKI, S., AND LAMPORT, L. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4, 3 (July 1982), 455-495.

.... very convenient formal language in which to state, and reason about, the behavioral properties of parallel programs and more generally reactive systems [Pnu77, Pnu81] Indeed, correctness for these systems typically involves reasoning upon related events at di erent moments of a system execution [OL82] Furthermore, when it comes to liveness properties, the expected behavior of reactive systems cannot be stated as a static property, or as an invariant one. Finally, temporal logic is well suited to expressing the whole variety of fairness properties that play such a prominent role in ....

S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455495, 1982.

.... This work was supported partially by an EPSRC PhD Studentship and partially by EPSRC Research Grant GR K57282 C. Dixon A Search Algorithm for Temporal Resolution 2 carried out into the speci cation and veri cation of properties of concurrent systems using temporal logics, see for example [3, 5, 23, 29, 31, 35, 38, 39, 41]. Important computational properties such as liveness, deadlock and mutual exclusion can be expressed easily and simply in temporal logic making it useful for speci cation. Verifying that such properties hold for a program speci ed in temporal logic involves proofs within the logic itself. To ....

S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455-495, July 1982.

....from the same limitations as classical temporal logic, since its features for the representation of quantitative time constraints are ultimately based on the next time operator of linear temporal logic. The work by Bernstein and Harter [5] based on the linear time temporal logic of [29] and [28], adds a real time constraint to the operator of temporal implication, thus imposing a maximal or minimal value to the distance in time between related events, and defines an execution model and a proof system for real time concurrent programs where properties like bounded response time or ....

Owicki, S., and Lamport, L., Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4, 3, (July 1982), 455-495.

....our attention on a single object that is subject to locking by the meta lock protocol. A formal proof that the meta lock guarantees mutual exclusion and freedom from lockout uses, respectively, Lamport s method of inductive assertions as exemplified in [15] and the OwickiLamport technique of [23]. 5.1 Mutual exclusion Assume that a thread T1 attempts to obtain the meta lock by calling getMetaLock( There are two cases to consider according to whether T1 reads a non BUSY or a BUSY status from the atomic swap in getMetaLock( Case 1: T1 reads non BUSY. In this case, T1 has the ....

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs, ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4, 3, p. 445-495, July 1982.

....the specification 17 S as well. 7 The role of the formal model is to allow the statement of the correctness condition as a mathematical problem, and then to get out of the way; the verifier will use whatever mathematical tools are applicable to solve the mathematical problem. Temporal logic [CES83, SPE83, MP83, OL82, Pnu77, NGO85] is concerned with assertions about time: eventually the program prints a result, Whenever anyone who wants to do something, they will eventually be able to and similar constructs. Temporal logics are quite powerful for specifying concurrent programs, in the sense that they allow concise and ....

....that there are certain properties which can be specified by automata but not by temporal logics. This holds for automatatheoretic reasons; in practice, many intelligible and useful properties seem to be expressible in temporal logic. Temporal methods are often combined with combinatorial methods [Lam88, OL82] by the addition of predicates telling which statements the programs are executing at the moment. Combinatorial methods and temporal logic are powerful tools for specification and verification of algorithms. However, they are not intended to serve as semantics for programs in any useful way. In ....

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, 1982.

....to a temporal logic characterization of its behavior, and this problem is often swept under the rug. A great deal of work in temporal logic concerns reasoning about system correctness after system components have been specified in terms of temporal logic (see, for example, HO80] SMS81] OL82] Lam83] Sta84] and [NGO85] The most dramatic distinction between these works is the way in which temporal logic is used to describe system behavior. Schwartz and Melliar Smith give purely temporal specifications of programs in [SMS81] In these specifications, even the notion of a process ....

....a great deal of work has studied the problem of reasoning about systems after system components have been specified in terms of temporal logic, less has been devoted to proving that an implementation actually meets its temporal logic specification. One attempt is that of Owicki and Lamport in [OL82] improving on the work of Lamport in [Lam77] Since safety properties can be proven using methods of Owicki and Gries, of particular interest is the style of proving liveness properties Owicki and Lamport describe. Owicki and Lamport construct diagrams called proof lattices that outline the ....

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

No context found.

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

No context found.

S. S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs. ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems 4, 3 (1982), 455495.

No context found.

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

....systems. It was designed to be simple, to be very expressive, and to permit a direct formalization of traditional assertional reasoning the style of reasoning begun by Floyd [5] and Hoare [9] and extended to concurrent programs by Ashcroft [2] Owicki and Gries [21] Pnueli [24] and others [3, 11, 12, 22]. Making it easy, or even possible, to build tools was not a design criterion for the language. The desire to formalize assertional reasoning, especially for liveness properties, led LL to base TLA on TLA (the Temporal Logic of Actions) 15] a simple variant of linear time temporal logic ....

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455-495, July 1982.

....logic is new, it o#ers no really new method of reasoning about concurrent programs. We feel that existing assertional proof methods are adequate: safety properties are proved by invariance arguments [LS84, OG76] and liveness properties are proved by counting down arguments or proof lattices [OL82]. The logic just provides a convenient way of formalizing the proofs. Since these proof methods are not new, there is no need for realistic examples. We illustrate the logic with the simple program of Figure 1. The program has integer valued variables x and y initialized to 0, and an ....

....i# there exists a nonstuttering step of # and the first such step is an A transition. 2.3.4 Temporal Reasoning The temporal reasoning with # and its derived operators used in program verification is simple. With a little practice, it becomes quite natural. Much has been written on the subject [OL82, Pnu77], so we will take this kind of reasoning for granted. In addition to the usual rules for #, we need laws governing the operator [ We make no attempt to formulate a comprehensive set of proof rules; we just present the ones that are used in practice. Traditional invariance proofs of safety ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

No context found.

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(, July 1982.

No context found.

S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455-495, 1982.

No context found.

S. Owicki and L. Lamport, "Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1982, pp. 455-495.

No context found.

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

No context found.

Susan Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, July 1982.

No context found.

S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455-595, 1982. 130

No context found.

S. Owicki and L. Lamport, `Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs', IEEE Trans. Programming Languages 4, (3), 455--495 (1982).

No context found.

Owicki, S.S. and L. Lampoft. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4, 3 (July 1982), 455-496.

No context found.

S. Owicki and Leslie Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455-495, July 1982.

No context found.

S. Owicki and L. Lamport: "Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs", ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455--495, 1982.

No context found.

Owicki, S. S., and Lamport, L., Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs, ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Syst., Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1982, pp. 455-495.

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