Advertisement

Correlating Structured Inputs and Outputs in Functional Specifications

  • Oana Fabiana AndreescuEmail author
  • Thomas Jensen
  • Stéphane Lescuyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9763)

Abstract

We present a static correlation analysis that computes a safe approximation of what part of an input state of a function is copied to the output state. This information is to be used by an interactive theorem prover to automate the discharging of proof obligations concerning unmodified parts of the state. The analysis is defined for a strongly-typed, functional language that handles structures, variants and arrays. It uses partial equivalence relations as approximations of fine-grained correlations between inputs and outputs. The analysis is interprocedural and summarizes not only what is modified but also how and to what extent. We have applied it to a functional specification of a micro-kernel, and obtained results that demonstrate both its precision and its scalability.

Keywords

Proof Obligation Control Flow Graph Algebraic Data Type Frame Axiom Extended Static Checker 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. For their excellent comments and sharp observations, we are particularly grateful to Olivier Delande and Georges Dupéron. Our article also benefited from the remarks of B. Montagu and H. Chataing.

References

  1. 1.
    Andreescu, O.F., Jensen, T., Lescuyer, S.: Dependency analysis of functional specifications with algebraic data structures. In: Formal Methods and Software Engineering - 17th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, ICFEM 2015, Proceedings, pp. 116–133 (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_8
  2. 2.
    Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: Compositional shape analysis by means of Bi-abduction. In: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, pp. 289–300 (2009). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1480881.1480917
  3. 3.
    Chang, B.E., Leino, K.R.M.: Abstract interpretation with alien expressions and heap structures. In: Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, 6th International Conference, VMCAI 2005, Proceedings, pp. 147–163 (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30579-8_11
  4. 4.
    Jones, N.D., Muchnick, S.S.: Flow analysis and optimization of lisp-like structures. In: Conference Record of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1979, pp. 244–256 (1979). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/567752.567776
  5. 5.
    Kildall, G.A.: A unified approach to global program optimization. In: Conference Record of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1973, pp. 194–206 (1973). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/512927.512945
  6. 6.
    Lattner, C., Lenharth, A., Adve, V.S.: Making context-sensitive points-to analysis with heap cloning practical for the real world. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2007 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2007, pp. 278–289 (2007). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1250734.1250766
  7. 7.
    Lescuyer, S.: ProvenCore: towards a verified isolation micro-kernel (2015). http://milsworkshop2015.euromils.eu/downloads/hipeac_literature/04-mils15_submission_6.pdf
  8. 8.
    Mccarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Machine Intelligence. Edinburgh University Press (1969)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer, B.: Framing the frame problem. In: Dependable Software Systems Engineering, pp. 193–203 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-495-4-193
  10. 10.
    Milanova, A., Rountev, A., Ryder, B.G.: Parameterized object sensitivity for points-to analysis for Java. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 14(1), 1–41. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1044834.1044835 (2005)
  11. 11.
    Montenegro, M., Peña, R., Segura, C.: Shape analysis in a functional language by using regular languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 111, 51–78 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.12.006
  12. 12.
    Rakamaric, Z., Hu, A.J.: Automatic inference of frame axioms using static analysis. In: 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2008), pp. 89–98 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2008.19
  13. 13.
    Sagiv, S., Reps, T.W., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. In: POPL 1999, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1999, pp. 105–118 (1999). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/292540.292552
  14. 14.
    Sălcianu, A., Rinard, M.: Purity and side effect analysis for Java programs. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taghdiri, M., Seater, R., Jackson, D.: Lightweight extraction of syntactic specifications. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2006, pp. 276–286 (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1181775.1181809

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oana Fabiana Andreescu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thomas Jensen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stéphane Lescuyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Prove & RunParisFrance
  2. 2.INRIA Rennes – Bretagne AtlantiqueRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations