Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CTL-property Transformations along an Incremental Design Process

  • Special Section on Advances in Automated Verification of Critical Systems
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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)

  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’90

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. 65–84

    Google Scholar 

  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. 85–104

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke E.M., Grumberg O., Peled D.A. (1999). Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  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)

  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)

  8. Lano K. (1996). The B Language and Method, A guide to Practical Formal Development. Springer, Secaucus

    Google Scholar 

  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)

  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):11–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McMillan K.L. (1993). Symbolic model checking. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. On-Chip Bus Development Working Group. Virtual Component Interface Standard (VCI). VSI Alliance (2000)

  13. Open Microprocessors System Initiatives. OMI324: PI-Bus Standard Specification. Siemens, Munich, Germany (1994)

  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)

  15. Plath M., Ryan M. (2001). Feature integration using a feature construct. Sci. Comput. Program. 41(1):53–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. STERIA Technologie de l’information. Atelier B, Manuel Utilisateur. Aix-en-Provence, France (1998)

  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)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIP6 Laboratory, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

    Cécile Braunstein & Emmanuelle Encrenaz

Authors
  1. Cécile Braunstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuelle Encrenaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cécile Braunstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braunstein, C., Encrenaz, E. CTL-property Transformations along an Incremental Design Process. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 9, 77–88 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-006-0007-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-006-0007-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation