Applying Model Checking in Java Verification

Havelund, Klaus; Skakkebæk, Jens U.

doi:10.1007/3-540-48234-2_17

Cited by 30 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first version of JPF (Havelund and Pressburger, 1999), as well as the JCAT system (Demartini et al, 1999a), was based on a translation from Java to Promela. Although both these systems were successful in model checking some interesting Java programs (Havelund and Skakkebaek, 1999;Demartini et al, 1999a), such source-tosource translations suffer from two serious drawbacks:…”

Section: Complexity Of Language Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking programs

Visser

Havelund

Brat

et al. 2000

Proceedings ASE 2000. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

596

741

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The majority of work carried out in the formal methods community throughout the last three decades has (for good reasons) been devoted to special languages designed to make it easier to experiment with mechanized formal methods such as theorem provers, proof checkers and model checkers. In this paper we will attempt to give convincing arguments for why we believe it is time for the formal methods community to shift some of its attention towards the analysis of programs written in modern programming languages. In keeping with this philosophy we have developed a verification and testing environment for Java, called Java PathFinder (JPF), which integrates model checking, program analysis and testing. Part of this work has consisted of building a new Java Virtual Machine that interprets Java bytecode. JPF uses state compression to handle big states, and partial order and symmetry reduction, slicing, abstraction, and runtime analysis techniques to reduce the state space. JPF has been applied to a real-time avionics operating system developed at Honeywell, illustrating an intricate error, and to a model of a spacecraft controller, illustrating the combination of abstraction, runtime analysis, and slicing with model checking.

show abstract

Section: Complexity Of Language Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking programs

Visser

Havelund

Brat

et al. 2000

Proceedings ASE 2000. Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

596

741

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first one translates the code to PROMELA, furthermore it also allows the user to define his own abstractions, the latter abstracts directly the C code by implementing an extension of the GCC compiler. Java PathFinder [22], BeBop [2] and SLAM [3] use predicate abstraction. We refer to [11] for an extended overview of tools and techniques for abstract model checking.…”

Section: Conclusion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An abstract interpretation toolkit for μCRL

Espada

Pol

2006

Form Method Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a toolkit that assists in the task of generating abstract approximations of process algebraic specifications written in the language µCRL. Abstractions are represented by Modal Labelled Transition Systems, which are mixed transition systems with may and must modalities. The approach permits to infer the satisfaction or refutation of safety and liveness properties expressed in the (action-based) µ-calculus. The tool supports the abstraction of states and action labels, which allows to deal with infinitely branching systems.Keywords Model checking . Process algebra . muCRL . Abstract interpretation 1 Introduction

show abstract

“…Finally, modular applications are easier to verify [2] (if verification is considered absolutely necessary), as the application is already split into a set of orthogonal sections that communicate via a well-defined interface.…”

Section: Modularitymentioning

confidence: 99%