Integration of a Software Model Checker into Isabelle

  • Matthias Daum
  • Stefan Maus
  • Norbert Schirmer
  • M. Nassim Seghir
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3835)

Abstract

The paper presents a combination of interactive and automatic tools in the area of software verification. We have integrated a newly developed software model checker into an interactive verification environment for imperative programming languages. Although the problems in software verification are mostly too hard for full automation, we could increase the level of automated assistance by discharging less interesting side conditions. That allows the verification engineer to focus on the abstract algorithm, safely assuming unbounded arithmetic and unlimited buffers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaki, S., et al.: Modular verification of software components in C. In: ICSE, pp. 385–395. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henzinger, T.A., et al.: Lazy abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 58–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henzinger, T.A., et al.: Software verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pisini, V.K., et al.: Formal hardware verification by integrating HOL and MDG. In: Sarrafzadeh, M., Banerjee, P., Roy, K. (eds.) ACM Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI, pp. 23–28. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bevier, W.R., et al.: An approach to systems verification. J. Autom. Reasoning 5(4), 411–428 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joyce, J.J., Seger, C.-J.H.: Linking BDD-based symbolic evaluation to interactive theorem-proving. In: DAC, pp. 469–474 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strother Moore, J.: A grand challenge proposal for formal methods: A verified stack. In: Aichernig, B.K., Maibaum, T. (eds.) Formal Methods at the Crossroads. From Panacea to Foundational Support. LNCS, vol. 2757, pp. 161–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M. (eds.): Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rajan, S., Shankar, N., Srivas, M.K.: An integration of model checking with automated proof checking. In: Wolper, P. (ed.) CAV 1995. LNCS, vol. 939, pp. 84–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schirmer, N.: A verification environment for sequential imperative programs in Isabelle/HOL. In: Baader, F., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3452, pp. 398–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schirmer, N.: Verification of Sequential Imperative Programs in Isabelle/HOL. PhD thesis, TU-München, to appear (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Daum
    • 1
  • Stefan Maus
    • 2
  • Norbert Schirmer
    • 3
  • M. Nassim Seghir
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Max-Planck Institut für InformatikSaarbrücken
  3. 3.Technische Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations