Forward Simulation for Data Refinement of Classes
- 215 Downloads
Simulation is the most widely used technique to prove data refinement. We define forward simulation for a language with recursive classes, inheritance, type casts and tests, dynamic binding, class based visibility, mutable state (without aliasing), and specification constructs from refinement calculi. It is a language based on sequential Java, but it also includes specification and deseign mechanisms appropriate for the construction of programs based on refinement. We show simulation to be sound for data refinement of classes in this language.
Keywordsobject-orientation data refinement soundness of simulation program analysis and verification
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Martín Abadi and K. Rustan M. Leino. A logic of object-oriented programs. In Proceedings, TAPSOFT 1997. Springer-Verlag, 1997. Expanded in DEC SRC report 161.Google Scholar
- 2.R. J. R. Back. Procedural Abstraction in the Refinement Calculus. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Åbo-Finland, 1987. Ser. A No. 55.Google Scholar
- 3.R. J. R. Back and J. Wright. Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.Anindya Banerjee and David Naumann. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In POPL2002, pages 166–177, 2001.Google Scholar
- 5.Martin Büchi and Wolfgang Weck. The greybox approach: When blackbox specifications hide too much. Technical Report 297, Turku Center for Computer Science, August 1999. http://www.abo.fi/~mbuechi/publications/TR297.html.
- 6.A. L. C. Cavalcanti and D. Naumann. A Weakest Precondition Semantics for an Object-oriented Language of Refinement. In J. M. Wing, J. C. P. Woodcock, and J. Davies, editors, FM’99: World Congress on Formal Methods, volume 1709 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1439–1459. Springer-Verlag, September 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.A. L. C. Cavalcanti and D. A. Naumann. A Weakest Precondition Semantics for Refinement of Object-oriented Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(8):713–728, August 2000.Google Scholar
- 8.A. L. C. Cavalcanti and D. A. Naumann. Forward Simulation for Data Refinement of Classes-Extended Version. Technical Report 2001-4, Computer Science, Stevens Institute of Technology, 2001. http://www.cs.stevens-tech.edu/~naumann/tr2001-4.ps.
- 9.A. L. C. Cavalcanti and David A. Naumann. On a specification-oriented model for object-orientation. In Proceedings of the VI Brazilian Symposium on Programming Languares, 2002. To appear.Google Scholar
- 11.Willem-Paul de Roever and Kai Engelhardt. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
- 12.David L. Detlefs, K. Rustan M. Leino, Greg Nelson, and James B. Saxe. Extended static checking. Technical Report Report 159, Compaq Systems Research Center, December 1998.Google Scholar
- 13.Martin Fowler. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
- 15.J. He, C. A. R. Hoare, and J. W. Sanders. Prespecification in Data Refinement. Information Processing Letters, 25(1), 1987.Google Scholar
- 18.Samin Ishtiaq and Peter W. O’Hearn. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In POPL. ACM Press, 2001.Google Scholar
- 19.C. B. Jones. Software Development: A Rigorous Approach. Prentice-Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
- 20.G. T. Leavens and W. E. Weihl. Specification and verification of object-oriented programas using supertype abstraction. Acta Informatica, 32, 1995.Google Scholar
- 21.Gary T. Leavens, K. Rustan M. Leino, Erik Poll, Clyde Ruby, and Bart Jacobs. JML: notations and tools supporting detailed design in Java. In OOPSLA 2000 Companion, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 105–106. ACM, October 2000.Google Scholar
- 23.K.R.M Leino, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, and Y. Zhou. Using data groups to specify and check side effects. In Programming Language Design and Implementation 2002, 2002. To appear.Google Scholar
- 24.B. H. Liskov and J. M. Wing. A Behavioural Notion of Subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(6), 1994.Google Scholar
- 25.Nancy Lynch and Frits Vaandrager. Forward and backward simulations part I: Untimed systems. Information and Computation, 121(2), 1995.Google Scholar
- 26.C. C. Morgan. Programming from Specifications. Prentice-Hall, 2nd edition, 1994.Google Scholar
- 28.P. Müller. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. PhD thesis, FernUniversität Hagen, 2001. Available from http://www.informatik.fernuni-hagen.de/pi5/publications.html.
- 30.Gordon Plotkin. Lambda definability and logical relations. Technical Report SAI-RM-4, University of Edinburgh, School of Artificial Intelligence, 1973.Google Scholar
- 32.John Power and Edmund Robinson. Logical relations and data abstraction. In Computer Science Logic, 2000.Google Scholar
- 33.U. S. Reddy. Objects and classes in Algol-like languages. In Fifth Intern. Workshop on Foundations of Object-oriented Languages, Jan 1998. Full version to appear in Information and Computation.Google Scholar
- 34.John C. Reynolds. Intuitionistic reasoning about shared mutable data structure. In Millenial Perspectives in Computer Science. Palgrave, 2001.Google Scholar
- 35.Clemens Szyperski. Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. ACM Press Books. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
- 36.R. D. Tennent. Correctness of data representations in Algol-like languages. In A. W. Roscoe, editor, A Classical Mind: Essays Dedicated to C A. R. Hoare. Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar