Effectively-Propositional Reasoning about Reachability in Linked Data Structures

Itzhaky, Shachar; Banerjee, Anindya; Immerman, Neil; Nanevski, Aleksandar; Sagiv, Mooly

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_53

Cited by 48 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We instantiate the relational proposal mechanism with reachability relations: The reachability relation n * (i, j) holds if the cell pointed to by j can be reached from i using zero or more pointer dereferences. A recently published decision procedure is complete for such candidates via a reduction of such formulas to boolean satisfiability [31]. We use this decision procedure as our validator and randomized search to find invariants for some standard singly linked list manipulating programs (described in [31]) in Table 5.…”

Section: Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From invariant checking to invariant inference using randomized search

Sharma

Aiken

2016

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We describe a general framework c2i for generating an invariant inference procedure from an invariant checking procedure. Given a checker and a language of possible invariants, c2i generates an inference procedure that iteratively invokes two phases. The search phase uses randomized search to discover candidate invariants and the validate phase uses the checker to either prove or refute that the candidate is an actual invariant. To demonstrate the applicability of c2i, we use it to generate inference procedures that prove safety properties of numerical programs, prove non-termination of numerical programs, prove functional specifications of array manipulating programs, prove safety properties of string manipulating programs, and prove functional specifications of heap manipulating programs that use linked list data structures.

show abstract

Section: Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recently published decision procedure is complete for such candidates via a reduction of such formulas to boolean satisfiability [31]. We use this decision procedure as our validator and randomized search to find invariants for some standard singly linked list manipulating programs (described in [31]) in Table 5.…”

Section: Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From invariant checking to invariant inference using randomized search

Sharma

Aiken

2016

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the adaptation rule drastically simplifies the WeakestPrecondition rules given in [11]. Notice the specifications in Table 2 do not use quantifiers at all, whereas in [11] the formulas contain quantifiers with alternations.…”

Section: Decision Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modular reasoning about heap paths via effectively propositional formulas

Itzhaky

Banerjee

Immerman

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First order logic with transitive closure, and separation logic enable elegant interactive verification of heap-manipulating programs. However, undecidabilty results and high asymptotic complexity of checking validity preclude complete automatic verification of such programs, even when loop invariants and procedure contracts are specified as formulas in these logics. This paper tackles the problem of procedure-modular verification of reachability properties of heap-manipulating programs using efficient decision procedures that are complete: that is, a SAT solver must generate a counterexample whenever a program does not satisfy its specification. By (a) requiring each procedure modifies a fixed set of heap partitions and creates a bounded amount of heap sharing, and (b) restricting program contracts and loop invariants to use only deterministic paths in the heap, we show that heap reachability updates can be described in a simple manner. The restrictions force program specifications and verification conditions to lie within a fragment of first-order logic with transitive closure that is reducible to effectively propositional logic, and hence facilitate sound, complete and efficient verification. We implemented a tool atop Z3 and report on preliminary experiments that establish the correctness of several programs that manipulate linked data structures.

show abstract

“…In this context, fragments of rstorder logic have been proposed that are decidable and are useful for dealing with pointer structures [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ensuring Correctness of Model Transformations While Remaining Decidable

Brenas

Echahed

Strecker

2016

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper is concerned with the interplay of the expressiveness of model and graph transformation languages, of assertion formalisms making correctness statements about transformations, and the decidability of the resulting verication problems. We put a particular focus on transformations arising in graph-based knowledge bases and model-driven engineering. We then identify requirements that should be satised by logics dedicated to reasoning about model transformations, and investigate two promising instances which are decidable fragments of rst-order logic.

show abstract

Effectively-Propositional Reasoning about Reachability in Linked Data Structures

Cited by 48 publications

References 26 publications

From invariant checking to invariant inference using randomized search

From invariant checking to invariant inference using randomized search

Modular reasoning about heap paths via effectively propositional formulas

Ensuring Correctness of Model Transformations While Remaining Decidable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About