Correct Code Containing Containers

Dross, Claire; Filliâtre, Jean-Christophe; Moy, Yannick

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21768-5_9

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dross et al [DFM11] describe a detailed axiomatization of lists, sets, and tables in the Why functional language, as well as an operational semantics in the Coq interactive prover [Pau11]; using Coq, they prove that the Why axiomatization is consistent with the Coq formalization. The axiomatization is designed to be amenable to automated reasoning using SMT solvers; hence it is applicable to proving properties of code using containers written in Ada 2012-even though the paper does not report about concrete case studies.…”

Section: Verification Of Data-structure Clientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A fully verified container library

Polikarpova¹,

Tschannen

Furia

2018

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The comprehensive functionality and nontrivial design of realistic general-purpose container libraries pose challenges to formal verification that go beyond those of individual benchmark problems mainly targeted by the state of the art. We present our experience verifying the full functional correctness of EiffelBase2: a container library offering all the features customary in modern language frameworks, such as external iterators, and hash tables with generic mutable keys and load balancing. Verification uses the automated deductive verifier AutoProof, which we extended as part of the present work. Our results indicate that verification of a realistic container library (135 public methods, 8400 LOC) is possible with moderate annotation overhead (1.4 lines of specification per LOC) and good performance (0.2 s per method on average).

show abstract

Section: Verification Of Data-structure Clientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A fully verified container library

Polikarpova¹,

Tschannen

Furia

2018

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Datatypes that are often needed are collections. In SPARK, there is a library of collections that are specifically designed for simultaneous use in dynamic and static verification [17]. The user can even design her own library of non-executable datatypes, using the so-called external axiomatizations, for example to support unbounded integers in proof.…”

Section: Spark 2014: Static Verification Of Ada 2012 Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static versus Dynamic Verification in Why3, Frama-C and SPARK 2014

Kosmatov¹,

Marché²,

Moy³

et al. 2016

Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Foundational Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why3 is an environment for static verification, generic in the sense that it is used as an intermediate tool by different front-ends for the verification of Java, C or Ada programs. Yet, the choices made when designing the specification languages provided by those front-ends differ significantly, in particular with respect to the executability of specifications. We review these differences and the issues that result from these choices. We emphasize the specific feature of ghost code which turns out to be extremely useful for both static and dynamic verification. We also present techniques, combining static and dynamic features, that help users understand why static verification fails.Work partly supported by the Joint Laboratory ProofInUse (ANR-13-LAB3-0007, http:// www.spark-2014.org/proofinuse) of the French national research organization

show abstract

“…In Hi-Lite, special care has been taken to provide a library for containers well suited to proof [14]. Indeed, these data structures obviate the need for pointers, which are not easily handled in formal verification.…”

Section: Providing Rich Librariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hi-Lite

Kanig

Schonberg

Dross

2012

Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on High Integrity Language Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal program verification tools check that a program correctly implements its specification. Existing specification languages for well-known programming languages (Ada, C, Java, C # ) have been developed independently from the programming language to which they apply. As a result, specifications are expressed separately from the code, typically as stylized comments, and the verification tools often bear no direct relation to the production compiler. We argue that this approach is problematic, and that the compiler and the verification tools should be integrated seamlessly. Based on our current work on the Hi-Lite project to develop a formal verification tool for Ada 2012, we show that in an integrated setting, the compiler becomes the centerpiece of the verification architecture, and supports both static proofs and run-time assertion checking. Such an environment does much to simplify software certification.

show abstract

Correct Code Containing Containers

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

A fully verified container library

A fully verified container library

Static versus Dynamic Verification in Why3, Frama-C and SPARK 2014

Hi-Lite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About