Advertisement

CADP 2011: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes

  • Hubert Garavel
  • Frédéric Lang
  • Radu Mateescu
  • Wendelin SerweEmail author
TACAS 2011

Abstract

CADP (Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes) is a comprehensive software toolbox that implements the results of concurrency theory. Started in the mid-1980s, CADP has been continuously developed by adding new tools and enhancing existing ones. Today, CADP benefits from a worldwide user community, both in academia and industry. This paper presents the latest release, CADP 2011, which is the result of a considerable development effort spanning the last five years. The paper first describes the theoretical principles and the modular architecture of CADP, which has inspired several other recent model checkers. The paper then reviews the main features of CADP 2011, including compilers for various formal specification languages, equivalence checkers, model checkers, compositional verification tools, performance evaluation tools, and parallel verification tools running on clusters and grids. Finally, the paper surveys some significant case studies.

Keywords

Asynchronous concurrency Equivalence checking Formal methods Model checking Performance evaluation Process calculus Verification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen H.R.: Model checking and boolean graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(1), 3–30 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnat, J., Brim, L., Češka, M., Ročkai, P.”: DiVinE: parallel distributed model checker (tool paper). In: Proceedings of Parallel and Distributed Methods in Verification and High Performance Computational Systems Biology HiBi/PDMC 2010 (Twente, The Netherlands), pp. 4–7. IEEE Computer Society Press, Sept 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belinfante, A., Feenstra, J., de Vries, R.G., Tretmans, J., Goga, N., Feijs, L., Mauw, S., Heerink, L.: Formal test automation: a simple experiment. In: Proceedings of the IFIP 12th International Workshop on Testing of Communicating Systems IWTCS’99 (Budapest, Hungary). Kluwer, Dordrecht, Sept 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergamini, D., Descoubes, N., Joubert, C., Mateescu, R.: BISIMULATOR: a modular tool for on-the-fly equivalence checking. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2005 (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3440, pp. 581–585. Springer, Berlin, April 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berthomieu, B., Bodeveix, J.-P., Farail, P., Filali, M., Garavel, H., Gaufillet, P., Lang, F., Vernadat, F.: FIACRE: An intermediate language for model verification in the TOPCASED environment. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Embedded Real-Time Software ERTS’08 (Toulouse, France). SIA (the French Society of Automobile Engineers), AAAF (the French Society of Aeronautic and Aerospace), and SEE (the French Society for Electricity, Electronics, and Information & Communication Technologies), Jan 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blom S., Orzan S.: Distributed state space minimization. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 7(3), 280–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: LTSmin: distributed and symbolic reachability. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification CAV 2010 (Edinburgh, UK). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6174, pp. 354–359. Springer, Berlin, July 2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.-C., Graf, S., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: Safety for branching time semantics. In: Proceedings of 18th ICALP. Springer, Berlin, July 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouali, A., Ressouche, A., Roy, V., de Simone, R.: The Fc2Tools set: a toolset for the verification of concurrent systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1102. Springer, Berlin, Aug 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyer, F., Gruber, O., Salaün, G.: Specifying and verifying the SYNERGY reconfiguration protocol with LOTOS NT/CADP. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Formal Methods FM’2011 (Limerick, Ireland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6664, pp. 103–117. Springer, Berlin, June 2011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozga, M., Fernandez, J.-C., Ghirvu, L., Graf, S., Krimm, J.-P., Mounier, L.: IF: an intermediate representation and validation environment for timed asynchronous systems. In: Proceedings of World Congress on Formal Methods in the Development of Computing Systems FM’99 (Toulouse, France). Springer, Berlin, Sept 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brookes S.D., Hoare C.A.R., Roscoe A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., McKinty, C., Powazny, V., Lang, F., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the LOTOS NT to LOTOS Translator (Version 5.4). INRIA/VASY, Sept 2011Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chehaibar, G., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Tawbi, N., Zulian, F.: Specification and verification of the powerscale bus arbitration protocol: an industrial experiment with LOTOS. In: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols, and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification FORTE/PSTV’96 (Kaiserslautern, Germany), pp. 435–450. IFIP, Chapman & Hall, Oct 1996. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-2958Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chehaibar, G., Zidouni, M., Mateescu, R.: Modeling multiprocessor Cache protocol impact on MPI performance. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Quantitative Evaluation of Large-Scale Systems and Technologies QuEST’09 (Bradford, UK). IEEE Computer Society Press, May 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheung, K.H.: Compositional analysis of complex distributed systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Enhancing compositional reachability analysis with context constraints. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Los Angeles, CA, USA), pp. 115–125. ACM Press, Dec 1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Compositional reachability analysis of finite-state distributed systems with user-specified constraints. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Washington, DC, USA), pp. 140–150. ACM Press, Oct 1995Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheung S.C., Kramer J.: Context constraints for compositional reachability. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5(4), 334–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chossart, R.: Évaluation d’outils de vérification pour les spécifications de systèmes d’information. Mémoire maître ès sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada, Mar 2010Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic. In: 10th Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke E.M., Emerson E.A., Sistla A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cleaveland, R., Li, T., Sims, S.: The Concurrency Workbench of the New Century (Version 1.2). User’s manual, July 2000Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B.: The Concurrency Workbench. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems (Grenoble, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 407, pp. 24–37. Springer, Berlin, June 1989Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cornejo, M.A., Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., de Palma, N.: Specification and verification of a dynamic reconfiguration protocol for agent-based applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP WG 6.1 International Working Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems DAIS’2001 (Krakow, Poland), pp. 229–242. IFIP, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Sept 2001. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4222Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coste, N., Garavel, H., Hermanns, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Ten years of performance evaluation for concurrent systems using CADP. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation ISoLA 2010 (Amirandes, Heraclion, Crete), Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6416, pp. 128–142. Springer, Berlin, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coste, N., Hermanns, H., Lantreibecq, E., Serwe, W.: Towards performance prediction of compositional models in industrial GALS designs. In: Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification CAV’2009 (Grenoble, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5643, pp. 204–218. Springer, Berlin, July 2009Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart reduction. In: Proceedings of Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering FASE’2011 (Saarbrücken, Germany). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Berlin, Mar 2011Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deavours, D.D., Sanders, W.H.: An efficient well-specified check. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models PNPM’99 (Zaragoza, Spain), pp. 124–133. IEEE Press (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE’99 (Los Angeles, CA, USA), May 1999Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.-L.: Efficient model checking in fragments of the propositional Mu-calculus. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Logic in Computer Science LICS’86, pp. 267–278 (1986)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fernandez, J.-C.: ALDEBARAN: un système de vérification par réduction de processus communicants. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble), May 1988Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Garavel, H., Kerbrat, A., Mateescu, R., Mounier, L., Sighireanu, M.: CADP (CÆSAR/ALDEBARAN Development Package): A Protocol Validation and Verification Toolbox. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1102, pp. 437–440. Springer, Berlin, Aug 1996Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Rasse, A., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: A toolbox for the verification of LOTOS programs. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE’14 (Melbourne, Australia), pp. 246–259. ACM, New York, May 1992Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Mounier, L.: “On the Fly” verification of behavioural equivalences and preorders. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification (Aalborg, Denmark). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 575, pp. 181–191. Springer, Berlin, July 1991Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Richier, J.-L., Voiron, J.: Verification of protocol specifications using the CESAR system. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (Moissac, France), pp. 71–90. IFIP, North-Holland, June 1985Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fischer M.J., Ladner R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation et vérification de programmes LOTOS. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble), Nov 1989Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation of LOTOS abstract data types. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Description Techniques FORTE’89 (Vancouver B.C., Canada), pp. 147–162. North-Holland, Dec 1989Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garavel, H.: On the introduction of gate typing in E-LOTOS. Rapport SPECTRE 94-3, VERIMAG, Grenoble, Feb. 1994. Annex D of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG1 N1314 Revised Draft on Enhancements to LOTOS and Annex C of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG1 N1349 Working Draft on Enhancements to LOTOSGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CÆSAR: an open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’98 (Lisbon, Portugal). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84, Springer, Berlin, Mar 1998. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3352Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garavel, H.: Défense et illustration des algèbres de processus. In Actes de l’Ecole d’été Temps Réel ETR 2003 (Toulouse, France). Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Sept 2003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Garavel, H.: Reflections on the future of concurrency theory in general and process calculi in particular. In: Proceedings of the LIX Colloquium on Emerging Trends in Concurrency Theory (Ecole Polytechnique de Paris, France), November 13–15, 2006. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 209, pp. 149–164. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Apr 2008. Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-6368Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garavel, H., Helmstetter, C., Ponsini, O., Serwe, W.: Verification of an industrial SystemC/TLM model using LOTOS and CADP. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign MEMOCODE’2009 (Cambridge, MA, USA). IEEE Computer Society Press, June 2009Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Garavel, H., Hermanns, H.: On combining functional verification and performance evaluation using CADP. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe FME’2002 (Copenhagen, Denmark). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2391, pp. 410–429. Springer, Berlin, July 2002. Full version available as INRIA Research Report 4492Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a scripting language for compositional verification. In: Proceedings of the 21st IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems FORTE’2001 (Cheju Island, Korea), pp. 377–392. IFIP, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Aug 2001. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4223Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An overview of CADP 2001. Eur. Assoc. Softw. Sci. Technol. Newsl. 4, 13–24 (2002). Also available as INRIA Technical Report RT-0254, Dec 2001Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2006: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification CAV’2007 (Berlin, Germany). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4590, pp. 158–163. Springer, Berlin, July 2007Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2010: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2011 (Saarbrücken, Germany). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6605, pp. 372–387. Springer, Berlin, Mar 2011Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R.: SEQ.OPEN: a tool for efficient trace-based verification. In: Proceedings of the 11th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software SPIN’2004 (Barcelona, Spain). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2989, pp. 150–155. Springer, Berlin, Apr 2004Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Bergamini, D., Curic, A., Descoubes, N., Joubert, C., Smarandache-Sturm, I., Stragier, G.: DISTRIBUTOR and BCG_MERGE: tools for distributed explicit state space generation. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2006 (Vienna, Austria). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3920, pp. 445–449. Springer, Berlin, Mar–Apr 2006Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Smarandache, I.: Parallel state space construction for model-checking. In: Proceedings of the 8th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software SPIN’2001 (Toronto, Canada). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2057, pp. 217–234. Springer, Berlin, May 2001. Revised version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4341, Dec 2001Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garavel H., Salaün G., Serwe W.: On the semantics of communicating hardware processes and their translation into LOTOS for the verification of asynchronous circuits with CADP. Sci. Comput. Program. 74(3), 100–127 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garavel H., Serwe W.: State space reduction for process algebra specifications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 351(2), 131–145 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and verification of LOTOS specifications. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (Ottawa, Canada), pp. 379–394. IFIP, North-Holland, June 1990Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: Towards a second generation of formal description techniques—rationale for the design of E-LOTOS. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems FMICS’98 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), pp. 187–230, Amsterdam, May 1998. CWI. Invited lectureGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A graphical parallel composition operator for process algebras. In: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols, and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification FORTE/PSTV’99 (Beijing, China), pp. 185–202. IFIP, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Oct 1999Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Garavel, H., Thivolle, D.: Verification of GALS systems by combining synchronous languages and process calculi. In: Model Checking Software, Proceedings of the 16th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software SPIN’2009 (Grenoble, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5578, pp. 241–260. Springer, Berlin, June 2009Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Garavel, H., Turlier, P.: CÆSAR.ADT: un compilateur pour les types abstraits algébriques du langage LOTOS. In: Actes du Colloque Francophone pour l’Ingénierie des Protocoles CFIP’93 (Montréal, Canada) (1993)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Garavel, H., Viho, C., Zendri, M.: System design of a CC-NUMA multiprocessor architecture using formal specification, model-checking, co-simulation, and test generation. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 3(3), 314–331 (2001). Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-4041Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Giannakopoulou, D.: Model checking for concurrent software architectures. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine—University of London—Department of Computer Science, Jan 1999Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Graf, S., Richier, J.-L., Rodríguez, C., Voiron, J.: What are the limits of model checking methods for the verification of real life protocols? In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems (Grenoble, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 407, pp. 275–285. Springer, Berlin, June 1989Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification (Rutgers, New Jersey, USA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 531, pp. 186–196. Springer, Berlin, June 1990Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Graf S., Steffen B., Lüttgen G.: Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications. Formal Asp. Comput. 8(5), 607–616 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Groote, J., Vaandrager, F.: An efficient algorithm for branching bisimulation and stuttering equivalence. In: Proceedings of the 17th ICALP (Warwick). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 443, pp. 626–638. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Groote, J.F., Ponse, A.: The syntax and semantics of μCRL. In: Algebra of Communicating Processes’94, Workshops in Computing Series, pp. 26–62. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Groote J.F., Willemse T.A.C.: Parameterised Boolean equation systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 343, 332–369 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Helmstetter, C.: TLM.OPEN: a SystemC/TLM Front-End for the CADP Verification Toolbox. Workshop on Simulation Based Development of Certified Embedded Systems SBDCES’09 (Awaji Island, Hyogo, Japan), Oct 2009Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Helmstetter, C., Ponsini, O.: A comparison of two SystemC/TLM semantics for formal verification. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign MEMOCODE’2008 (Anaheim, CA, USA), pp. 59–68. IEEE Computer Society Press, June 2008Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hermanns H.: Interactive Markov Chains and the Quest for Quantified Quality. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2428. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hermanns, H., Joubert, C.: A set of performance and dependability analysis components for CADP. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2003 (Warsaw, Poland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2619, pp. 425–430. Springer, Berlin, April 2003Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hermanns, H., Siegle, M.: Bisimulation algorithms for stochastic process algebras and their BDD-based implementation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International AMAST Workshop ARTS’99 (Bamberg, Germany). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1601, pp. 244–265. Springer, Berlin, May 1999Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hoare C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Holzmann G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Software Series. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Holzmann G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    ISO/IEC.: LOTOS—a formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization—Information Processing Systems—Open Systems Interconnection, Genève, Sept 1989Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    ISO/IEC. Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS). International Standard 15437:2001, International Organization for Standardization—Information Technology, Genève, Sept 2001Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    ITU-T.: Specification and Description Language (SDL). ITU-T Recommendation Z.100. International Telecommunication Union, Genève (1992)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kanellakis P.C., Smolka S.A.: CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Inf. Comput. 86(1), 43–68 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kemeny J.G., Snell J.L.: Finite Markov Chains. Springer, Berlin (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Khan, A.M.: Connection of Compositional Verification Tools for Embedded Systems. Mémoire master 2 recherche, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, June 2006Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Krimm, J.-P., Mounier, L.: Compositional State Space Generation from LOTOS Programs. In: Proceedings of TACAS’97 Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1217. Springer, Berlin, April 1997Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lang, F.: Compositional verification using SVL scripts. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2002 (Grenoble, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2280, pp. 465–469. Springer, Berlin, April 2002Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lang, F.: EXP.OPEN 2.0: a flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods IFM’2005 (Eindhoven, The Netherlands). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Berlin, Nov 2005. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5673Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lang F., Salaün G., Hérilier R., Kramer J., Magee J.: Translating FSP into LOTOS and Networks of Automata. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(6), 681–711 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lantreibecq, E., Serwe, W.: Model checking and co-simulation of a dynamic task dispatcher circuit using CADP. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems FMICS 2011 (Trento, Italy). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6959, pp. 180–195. Springer, Berlin, Aug 2011Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Liu, X., Smolka, S.A.: Simple linear-time algorithms for minimal fixed points. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming ICALP’98 (Aalborg, Denmark). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1443, pp. 53–66. Springer, Berlin, July 1998Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Liu, Y., Sun, J., Dong, J.S.: Developing model checkers using PAT. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis ATVA 2010 (Singapore). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6252, pp. 371–377. Springer, Berlin, Sept 2010Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mader A.: Verification of Modal Properties Using Boolean Equation Systems. VERSAL 8. Bertz Verlag, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs. Wiley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Malhotra, J., Smolka, S.A., Giacalone, A., Shapiro, R.: A tool for hierarchical design and simulation of concurrent systems. In: Proceedings of the BCS-FACS Workshop on Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems (Stirling, Scotland), pp. 140–152, Swindon, UK. British Computer Society, July 1988Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mateescu, R.: Vérification des propriétés temporelles des programmes parallèles. Thèse de Doctorat, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, April 1998Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mateescu, R.: Efficient diagnostic generation for Boolean equation systems. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2000 (Berlin, Germany). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1785, pp. 251–265. Springer, Berlin, Mar 2000. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3861Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mateescu, R.: A generic on-the-fly solver for alternation-free Boolean equation systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’2003 (Warsaw, Poland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2619, pp. 81–96. Springer, Berlin, April 2003. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4711Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mateescu, R.: CAESAR_SOLVE: a generic library for on-the-fly resolution of alternation-free Boolean equation systems. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 8(1), 37–56 (2006). Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5948, July 2006Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mateescu, R., Garavel, H.: XTL: a meta-language and tool for temporal logic model-checking. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Tools for Technology Transfer STTT’98 (Aalborg, Denmark), pp. 33–42. BRICS, July 1998Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mateescu, R., Oudot, E.: Improved on-the-fly equivalence checking using Boolean equation systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software SPIN’2008 (Los Angeles, USA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5156, pp. 196–213. Springer, Berlin, Aug 2008. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-6777Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G.: Translating Pi-Calculus into LOTOS NT. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods IFM’2010 (Nancy, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6396, pp. 229–244. Springer, Berlin, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Model checking and performance evaluation with CADP illustrated on shared-memory mutual exclusion protocols. Sci. Comput. Program. (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2012.01.003
  100. 100.
    Mateescu R., Sighireanu M.: Efficient On-the-Fly Model-Checking for Regular Alternation-Free Mu-Calculus. Sci. Comput. Program. 46(3), 255–281 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A model checking language for concurrent value-passing systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Formal Methods FM’08 (Turku, Finland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Berlin, May 2008Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mellor-Crummey J.M., Scott M.L.: Algorithms for scalable synchronization on shared-memory multiprocessors. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 9(1), 21–65 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Milne, G.J.: CIRCAL and the representation of communication, concurrency, and time. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 7(2), 270–298 (1985)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Milner R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nicola, R.D., Vaandrager, F.W.: Action versus State Based Logics for Transition Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 469, pp. 407–419. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pecheur, C.: Specification and verification of the CO4 distributed knowledge system using LOTOS. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering ASE-97 (Incline Village, Nevada, USA), Nov 1997Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Pecheur, C.: Advanced modelling and verification techniques applied to a cluster file system. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering ASE-99 (Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA). IEEE Computer Society, Oct 1999Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ponsini O., Fédèle C., Kounalis E.: Rewriting of imperative programs into logical equations. Sci. Comput. Program. 56(3), 363–401 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Ponsini, O., Serwe, W.: A Schedulerless semantics of TLM models written in SystemC via translation into LOTOS. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Formal Methods FM’08 (Turku, Finland). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5014, pp. 278–293. Springer, Berlin, May 2008Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Queille J.-P.: Le système CESAR: description, spécification et analyse des applications réparties. Université Scientifique et Médicale de Grenoble, Grenoble (1982)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Roscoe A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Rose, A., Swan, S., Pierce, J., Fernandez, J.-M.: Transaction Level Modeling in SystemC. Open SystemC Initiative (2005)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sabnani K.K., Lapone A.M., Uyar M.U.: An algorithmic procedure for checking safety properties of protocols. IEEE Trans. Commun. 37(9), 940–948 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Salaün, G., Etchevers, X., Palma, N.D., Boyer, F., Coupaye, T.: Verification of a self-configuration protocol for distributed applications in the cloud. In: Proceedings of the 27th Symposium On Applied Computing SAC’12 (Riva del Garda, Italy). ACM, New York (2012, to appear)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Schewe, S.: Solving Parity games in big steps. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science FSTTCS’07 (New Delhi, India). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4855, pp. 449–460. Springer, Berlin, Dec 2007Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Stevens, P., Stirling, C.: Practical model-checking using games. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS’98 (Lisbon, Portugal). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1384, pp. 85–101. Springer, Berlin, Mar 1998Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Streett R.: Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse. Inf. Control 54, 121–141 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: Hierarchy-based incremental reachability analysis of communication protocols. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (San Francisco, CA), pp. 318–325. IEEE Press, Piscataway, Oct 1993Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: An incremental approach to reachability analysis of distributed programs. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (Los Angeles, CA), pp. 141–150. IEEE Press, Piscataway, Dec 1993Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Thivolle, D.: Langages modernes pour la vérification des systèmes asynchrones. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble, France) and Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti (Bucharest, Romania), April 2011Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Tronel, F., Lang, F., Garavel, H.: Compositional verification using CADP of the ScalAgent deployment protocol for software components. In: Proceedings of the 6th IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems FMOODS’2003 (Paris, France). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2884, pp. 244–260. Springer, Berlin, Nov 2003. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5012Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Valmari, A.: Compositional state space generation. In: Proceedings of Advances in Petri Nets. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 674, pp. 427–457. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching-time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics (extended abstract). CS R8911, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, 1989. Also in Proc. IFIP 11th World Computer Congress, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    West C.: A general technique for communication protocol validation. IBM J. Res. Dev. 22, 393–404 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wolper, P.: A translation from full branching time temporal logic to one letter propositional dynamic logic with looping. Unpublished manuscript (1982)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Yeh, W.J.: Controlling state explosion in reachability analysis. PhD thesis, Software Engineering Research Center (SERC) Laboratory, Purdue University. Technical Report SERC-TR-147-P, Dec 1993Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Yeh, W.J., Young, M.: Compositional reachability analysis using process algebra. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification (SIGSOFT’91, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada), pp. 49–59. ACM Press, New York, Oct 1991Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Yovine S.: Kronos: a verification tool for real-time systems. Springer Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 1(1/2), 123–133 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Garavel
    • 1
  • Frédéric Lang
    • 1
  • Radu Mateescu
    • 1
  • Wendelin Serwe
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.INRIA/Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble, VASY TeamMontbonnot St MartinFrance

Personalised recommendations