Advertisement

A Customizable Execution Engine for Models of Embedded Systems

  • Karolina ZurowskaEmail author
  • Jürgen Dingel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6368)

Abstract

In the Model Driven Development (MDD) paradigm analysis of models is important. We propose an approach to the analysis which uses a customizable execution engine. Such customization can improve scalability and provide more support for variations of semantics. We exemplify these benefits with several customizations of semantics that are abstractions. They are applied to models of embedded systems implemented in the UML-RT language. The goal of abstractions is to replace original semantics with semantics that generates smaller state spaces. Different execution semantics of UML-RT models are provided terms of operational semantics style execution rules. We describe the design of the toolset called Toolset for UML-RT Execution, illustrate execution rules with examples, and present the results of preliminary evaluation.

Keywords

State Machine Model Check Symbolic Execution Execution State Execution Engine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    IBM Rational Software Architect, RealTime Edition, Version 8.0.2. http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/rsarthlp/v7r5m1/
  2. 2.
    Unified Modeling Language (UML 2.0) Superstructure. http://www.uml.org/
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Balasubramanian, D., Păsăreanu, C.S., Karsai, G., Lowry, M.R.: Polyglot: systematic analysis for multiple statechart formalisms. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013 (ETAPS 2013). LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 523–529. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P.: Abstract interpretation based formal methods and future challenges. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Informatics: 10 Years Back, 10 Years Ahead. LNCS, vol. 2000, pp. 138–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Joehanes, R., Laubach, S., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In: ICSE (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loustinova, N., Sidorova, N.: Abstraction and flow analysis for model checking open asynchronous systems. In: Software Engineering Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S., Rauh, C.: Model checking timed uml state machines and collaborations. In: Damm, W., Olderog, E.-R. (eds.) FTRTFT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2469, pp. 395–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leue, S., Stefanescu, A., Wei, W.: An AsmL semantics for dynamic structures and run time schedulability in UML-RT. Technical report, University of Konstanz (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manna, Z., Colón, M.A., Finkbeiner, B., Sipma, H.B., Uribe, T.E.: Abstraction and modular verification of infinite-state reactive systems. In: Broy, M. (ed.) RTSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1526, pp. 273–292. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehlitz, P.C.: Trust your model - verifying aerospace system models with Java pathfinder. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niu, J., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A.: Template semantics for model-based notations. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(10), 866–882 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Păsăreanu, C.S., Rungta, N.: Symbolic PathFinder: symbolic execution of Java bytecode. In: ASE (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saaltink, M., Meisels, I.: Using SPIN to analyse RoseRT models. Technical report, ORA Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model checking UML state machines and collaborations. Electron. Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci. 55(3), 357–369 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selic, B.: A short catalogue of abstraction patterns for model-based software engineering. Int. J. Softw. Inform. 5(1–2), 313–334 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selic, B.: What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 513–526 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zurowska, K.: Language specific analysis of statemachine models of reactive systems. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, June 2014Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zurowska, K., Dingel, J.: Symbolic execution of communicating and hierarchically composed UML-RT state machines. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds.) NFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7226, pp. 39–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zurowska, K., Dingel, J.: Model checking of UML-RT models using lazy composition. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 304–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations