Advertisement

CTL-property Transformations along an Incremental Design Process

  • Cécile BraunsteinEmail author
  • Emmanuelle Encrenaz
Special Section on Advances in Automated Verification of Critical Systems

Abstract

This paper formalizes an incremental approach to design flow-control oriented hardware devices described by Moore machines. The method is based on successive additions of new behaviours to a simple device in order to build a more complex one. The new behaviours added must not override the previous ones. A set of CTL formulae is assigned to each step of the design. The links between the formulae of two consecutive design steps are formalized as a set of formula-transformations F, stating that: for all CTL formula f with atomic propositions related to step i, f is satisfied on a design at step i, iff F(f) is satisfied on the design extended at step i + 1. This result extends the classical CTL property preservation results in a particular context. Moreover, it simplifies the writing of properties for a new device. This approach has been applied in the design of bus protocol converters and the transformations were useful to perform non-regression analysis. It could also be applied in order to simplify both system and formulae in particular cases.

Keywords

System design and verification Simulation relation Computational tree logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, TA., Mang, FYC., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, SK., Tasiran, S.:MOCHA: modularity in model checking. In CAV’98: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, vol. 1427. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 521–525, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burch J.R., Clarke E.M., McMillan K.L., Dill D.L., Hwang L.J. (1992). Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In. Comput. 98(2):142–170 Special issue for best papers from LICS’90MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cansell D., Méry D. (2001). Abstraction and refinement of features. In: Gilmore S., Ryan M. (eds) Language Constructs for Designing Features. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 65–84Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cassez F., Ryan M., Schobbens P-Y. (2001). Proving feature non-interaction with alternating-time temporal logic. In: Gilmore S., Ryan M. (eds) Language Constructs for Describing Features. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 85–104Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke E.M., Grumberg O., Peled D.A. (1999). Model Checking. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and modular verification. In: International Conference on Concurrency Theory. vol. 527. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 250–263. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henzinger, T.A., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.K.: You assume, we guarantee: methodology and case studies. In: Computer Aided Verification, vol. 1427. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 440–451, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lano K. (1996). The B Language and Method, A guide to Practical Formal Development. Springer, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A modal process logic. In: Third Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 203–210, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, IEEE Computer Society (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loiseaux C., Graf S., Sifakis J., Bouajjani A., Bensalem S. (1995). Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods in System Design 6(1):11–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McMillan K.L. (1993). Symbolic model checking. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    On-Chip Bus Development Working Group. Virtual Component Interface Standard (VCI). VSI Alliance (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Open Microprocessors System Initiatives. OMI324: PI-Bus Standard Specification. Siemens, Munich, Germany (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pasareanu, C.S., Dwyer, M.B., Huth, M.: Assume-guarantee model checking of software: a comparative case study. In: Proceedings of the 5th and 6th International SPIN Workshops on Theoretical and Practical Aspects of SPIN Model Checking, pp. 168–183 Springer, London, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plath M., Ryan M. (2001). Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci. Comput. Program. 41(1):53–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    STERIA Technologie de l’information. Atelier B, Manuel Utilisateur. Aix-en-Provence, France (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The VIS group. VIS : A System for Verification and Synthesis. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, vol. 1102. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 428–432. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIP6 LaboratoryUniversité Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations