Formal justification of the rely-guarantee paradigm for shared-variable concurrency: a semantic approach

  • F. S. de Boer
  • U. Hannemann
  • W. -P. de Roever
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1709)


This paper introduces a semantic analysis of the Rely-Guarantee (R-G) approach to the compositional verification of shared-variable concurrency. The main contribution is a new completeness proof.


  1. [1]
    M. Abadi and G. D. Plotkin. A logical view of composition. Theoretical Computer Science, 114(1):3–30, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Berry. The Constructive Semantics of Esterel. Book in preparation,, 1999.
  3. [3]
    S. Brookes. A fully abstract semantics of a shared variable parallel language. In Proceedings 8th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, pages 98–109, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F.S. de Boer, J.N. Kok, C. Palamedessi, and J.J.M.M. Rutten. The failure of failures: towards a paradigm for asynchronous communication. In Baeten and Groote, editors, CONCUR’91, LNCS 527. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W.-P. de Roever. The quest for compositionality-a survey of assertion-based proof systems for concurrent programs, part 1: Concurrency based on shared variables. In Proc. of IFIP Working Conf, The Role of Abstract Models in Computer Science, North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    W.-P. de Roever, F.S. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: An Introduction to State-based Methods. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R.W. Floyd. Assigning meanings to programs. In Proceedings AMS Symp. Applied Mathematics, volume 19, pages 19–31, Providence, R.I., 1967. American Mathematical Society.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Hooman. Compositional Verification of Real-Time Applications. In W.-P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli (eds.) Compositionality: The Significant Difference. International Symposium, COMPOS’97, Bad Malente, Germany, September 8-12, 1997. pp. 130–149, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1536, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C.B. Jones. Development methods for computer programs including a notion of interference. PhD thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C.B. Jones. Tentative steps towards a development method for interfering programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 5(4):596–619, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3), pp. 872–923, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Misra and K.M. Chandy. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engeneering, 7(7):417–426, 1981.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. Stark. A proof technique for rely/guarantee properties. In Proceedings of 5th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 206, pages 369–391. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Q. Xu. A theory of state-based parallel programming. DPhil. Thesis, Oxford University computing Laboratory, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Q. Xu, W.-P. de Roever, and J. He. The rely-guarantee method for verifying shared-variable concurrent programs. Formal Aspects of Computing, 9(2):149–174, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. S. de Boer
    • 1
  • U. Hannemann
    • 2
  • W. -P. de Roever
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institut für Informatik und PraktischeChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Germany

Personalised recommendations