Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types

Xi, Hongwei; Pfenning, Frank

doi:10.1145/277650.277732

Cited by 194 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our present notion of refinement types has its roots in the indexed types of Xi and Pfenning [26], wherein data types' ranges are restricted by indices, analogous to our refinement predicates, drawn from a decidable domain; in the example case explored by Xi and Pfenning, types were indexed by terms from Presburger arithmetic. Since then, several approaches to developing richer refinement type systems and accompanying methods for type checking have been developed.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greenberg et al [1] gives a rigorous treatment of the metatheoretic properties of such a refinement type system. Refinement types have been applied to the verification of a variety of program properties [26,7,2,10]. In the most closely related work to our own, Kawaguchi et al [16] introduce recursive and polymorphic refinements for data structure properties.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several groups have shown how refinement types can be used to verify properties ranging from partial correctness concerns like array bounds checking [26,22] and data structure invariants [16] to the correctness of security protocols [2], web applications [14] and implementations of cryptographic protocols [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Abstract Refinement Types

Vazou

Rondon

Jhala

2013

Programming Languages and Systems

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present abstract refinement types which enable quantification over the refinements of data-and function-types. Our key insight is that we can avail of quantification while preserving SMT-based decidability, simply by encoding refinement parameters as uninterpreted propositions within the ground refinement logic. We illustrate how this simple mechanism yields a variety of sophisticated and automatic means for reasoning about programs, including: parametric refinements for reasoning with type classes, index-dependent refinements for reasoning about key-value maps, recursive refinements for reasoning about data structures, and inductive refinements for reasoning about higher-order traversal routines. We have implemented our approach in HSOLVE, a refinement type checker for Haskell, and present experiments using HSOLVE to verify correctness invariants of various programs.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abstract Refinement Types

Vazou

Rondon

Jhala

2013

Programming Languages and Systems

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other languages, such as ML and Java, perform the check, but at run time, and at the cost of run time performance. Some researchers propose to perform this check at compile time [14], but the technique requires the programer to insert annotations in the source code, since modern languages do not include array bounds in their type systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

System-Level Types for Component-Based Design

Lee

Xiong

2001

Embedded Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present a framework to extend the concept of type systems in programming languages to capture the dynamic interaction in component-based design, such as the communication protocols between components. In our system, the interaction types and the dynamic behavior of components are defined using interface automata -an automata-based formalism. Type checking, which checks the compatibility of a component with a certain interaction type, is conducted through automata composition. Our type system is polymorphic in that a component may be compatible with more than one interaction type. We show that a subtyping relation exists among various interaction types and this relation can be described using a partial order. This system-level type order can be used to facilitate the design of polymorphic components and simplify type checking. In addition to static type checking, we also propose to extend the use of interface automata to the on-line reflection of component states and to run-time type checking. We illustrate our framework using a component-based design environment, Ptolemy II, and discuss the trade-offs in the design of system-level type systems.

show abstract

“…Type systems have been used to verify algebraic data types [10], array bounds [46], and mutable structures [48], usually enforcing weaker properties than in our case. Recently, researchers have developed a promising approach [34] based on separation logic [17] that can verify shape and content properties of imperative recursive data structures (although it has not been applied to hash tables yet).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using First-Order Theorem Provers in the Jahob Data Structure Verification System

Bouillaguet

Kunčak²,

Wies

et al.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents our integration of efficient resolution-based theorem provers into the Jahob data structure verification system. Our experimental results show that this approach enables Jahob to automatically verify the correctness of a range of complex dynamically instantiable data structures, including data structures such as hash tables and search trees, without the need for interactive theorem proving or techniques tailored to individual data structures. Our primary technical results include: (1) a translation from higher-order logic to first-order logic that enables the application of resolution-based theorem provers and (2) a proof that eliminating type (sort) information in formulas is both sound and complete, even in the presence of a generic equality operator. Our experimental results show that the elimination of type information dramatically decreases the time required to prove the resulting formulas. These techniques enabled us to verify complex correctness properties of Java programs such as a mutable set implemented as an imperative linked list, a finite map implemented as a functional ordered tree, a hash table with a mutable array, and a simple library system example that uses these container data structures. Our system verifies (in a matter of minutes) that data structure operations correctly update the finite map, that they preserve data structure invariants (such as ordering of elements, membership in appropriate hash table buckets, or relationships between sets and relations), and that there are no run-time errors such as null dereferences or array out of bounds accesses.

show abstract

Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types

Cited by 194 publications

References 10 publications

Abstract Refinement Types

Abstract Refinement Types

System-Level Types for Component-Based Design

Using First-Order Theorem Provers in the Jahob Data Structure Verification System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About