Advertisement

Abstract

The Spec# programming system is a new attempt at a more cost effective way to develop and maintain high-quality software. This paper describes the goals and architecture of the Spec# programming system, consisting of the object-oriented Spec# programming language, the Spec# compiler, and the Boogie static program verifier. The language includes constructs for writing specifications that capture programmer intentions about how methods and data are to be used, the compiler emits run-time checks to enforce these specifications, and the verifier can check the consistency between a program and its specifications.

Keywords

Custom Attribute Java Modeling Language Automatic Theorem Prover Object Invariant Method Contract 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler, A.L., Good, D.I., Browne, J.C., Burger, W.F., Cohen, R.M., Hoch, C.G., Wells, R.E.: GYPSY: A language for specification and implementation of verifiable programs. SIGPLAN Notices 12(3), 1–10 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes, J.: High Integrity Software: The SPARK Approach to Safety and Security. Addison-Wesley, With Praxis Critical Systems Limited (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology 3(6), 27–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnett, M., Grieskamp, W., Kerer, C., Schulte, W., Szyperski, C., Tillmann, N., Watson, A.: Serious specification for composing components. In: Crnkovic, I., Schmidt, H., Stafford, J., Wallnau, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering: Automated Reasoning and Prediction (May 2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnett, M., Grieskamp, W., Nachmanson, L., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Veanes, M.: Towards a tool environment for model-based testing with AsmL. In: 3rd International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Testing of Software, FATES 2003 (October 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnett, M., Naumann, D.A.: Friends need a bit more: Maintaining invariants over shared state. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Mathematics of Program Construction. LNCS, pp. 54–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnett, M., Naumann, D.A., Schulte, W., Sun, Q.: 99.44% pure: Useful abstractions in specifications. In: Poll, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the ECOOP Workshop FTfJP 2004, Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs, pp. 11–19. University of Nijmegen (June 2004), NIII report NIII-R0426Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnett, M., Schulte, W.: The ABCs of specification: AsmL, behavior, and components. Informatica 25(4), 517–526 (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnett, M., Schulte, W.: Runtime verification of .NET contracts. The Journal of Systems and Software 65(3), 199–208 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Box, D.: Essential .NET, Volume I: The Common Language Runtime. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyapati, C., Lee, R., Rinard, M.: Ownership types for safe programming: Preventing data races and deadlocks. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, OOPSLA 2002. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 37(11), pp. 211–230. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D.R., Ernst, M.D., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Poll, E.: An overview of JML tools and applications. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, STTT (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chapman, R.: Industrial experience with SPARK. Presented at SIGAda 2000 (November 2000), Available from, http://www.praxis-cs.co.uk
  15. 15.
    Cheon, Y.: A Runtime Assertion Checker for the Java Modeling Language. PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa State University, Department of Computer Science. Technical Report TR #03-09 (April 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Conference Record of the Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252. ACM, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI). SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 36(5), pp. 59–69. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M.: Typestates for objects. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 465–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Simplify: A theorem prover for program checking. Technical Report HPL-2003-148, HP Labs (July 2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Detlefs, D.L., Leino, K.R.M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Extended static checking. Research Report 159, Compaq Systems Research Center (December 1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deutsch, L.P.: An Interactive Program Verifier. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1973)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dhara, K.K., Leavens, G.T.: Forcing behavioral subtyping through specification inheritance. In: Proceedings 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 258–267. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fähndrich, M., Leino, K.R.M.: Declaring and checking non-null types in an object-oriented language. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2003. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 38(11), pp. 302–312. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Findler, R.B., Felleisen, M.: Contract soundness for object-oriented languages. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, OOPSLA 2001. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 36(11), pp. 1–15. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Extended static checking for Java. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI). SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 37(5), pp. 234–245. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, Proceedings of Symposium in Applied Mathematics, vol. 19, pp. 19–32. American Mathematical Society (1967)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    German, S.M.: Automating proofs of the absence of common runtime errors. In: Conference Record of the Fifth Annual ACMSymposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 105–118 (1978)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Good, D.I., London, R.L., Bledsoe, W.W.: An interactive program verification system. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Reliable software, pp. 482–492. ACM, New York (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goodenough, J.B.: Structured exception handling. In: Conference Record of the Second ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 204–224. ACM, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G.: The JavaTM Language Specification. Addison- Wesley, Reading (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grieskamp, W., Tillmann, N., Veanes, M.: Instrumenting scenarios in a model-driven development environment. Submitted manuscript (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guaspari, D., Marceau, C., Polak, W.: Formal verification of Ada programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(9), 1058–1075 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gurevich, Y., Rossman, B., Schulte, W.: Semantic essence of AsmL. Theoretical Computer Science (2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic approach to computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12, 576–580, 583 (1969)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Monitors: an operating system structuring concept. Communications of the ACM 17(10), 549–557 (1974)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacobs, B., Rustan, K., Leino, M., Schulte, W.: Verification of multithreaded objectoriented programs with invariants. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Communications of the ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    King, J.C.: A Program Verifier. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University (September 1969)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lampson, B.W., Horning, J.J., London, R.L., Mitchell, J.G., Popek, G.J.: Report on the programming language Euclid. Technical Report CSL-81-12, Xerox PARC (October 1981); An earlier version of this report appeared. In: SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 12(2). ACM, New York (February 1977)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: JML: A notation for detailed design. In: Kilov, H., Rumpe, B., Simmonds, I. (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 175–188. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: Preliminary design of JML: A behavioral interface specification language for Java. Technical Report 98-06u, Iowa State University, Department of Computer Science (April 2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Data groups: Specifying the modification of extended state. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 1998). SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 33(10), pp. 144–153. ACM, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Extended static checking: A ten-year perspective. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Informatics: 10 Years Back, 10 Years Ahead. LNCS, vol. 2000, pp. 157–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Millstein, T., Saxe, J.B.: Generating error traces from verification-condition counterexamples. Science of Computer Programming (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Müller, P.: Modular verification of global module invariants in object-oriented programs. Technical Report 459, ETH Zürich (September 2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Müller, P.: Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 491–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Nelson, G.: Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 24(5), 491–553 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Saxe, J.B., Stata, R.: Checking Java programs via guarded commands. In: Jacobs, B., Leavens, G.T., Müller, P., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) Formal Techniques for Java Programs. Technical Report 251. Fernuniversität Hagen (May 1999)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Schulte, W.: Exception safety for C#. In: SEFM 2004—Second International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 218–227. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liskov, B., Guttag, J.: Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. In: MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Luckham, D.C.: Programming with Specifications: An Introduction to Anna, a Language for Specifying Ada Programs. In: Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Luckham, D.C., German, S.M., von Henke, F.W., Karp, R.A., Milne, P.W., Oppen, D.C., Polak, W., Scherlis, W.L.: Stanford Pascal Verifier user manual. Technical Report STANCS-79-731, Stanford University (1979)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mann, C.C.: Why software is so bad. MIT Technology Review (July/August 2002)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    McConnell, S.: Code complete: A practical handbook of software construction. Microsoft Press (1993)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Meyer, B.: Object-oriented software construction. Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1988)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Müller, P.: Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. In: Müller, P. (ed.) Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. LNCS, vol. 2262, p. 123. Springer, Heidelberg (2002); PhD thesis, FernUniversität HagenGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    RTI Health, Social, and Economic Research. The economic impact of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. RTI Project 7007.011, National Institute for Standards and Technology (May 2002)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Horwitz, S.: Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis with applications to constant propagation. Theoretical Computer Science 167(1-2), 131–170 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sălcianu, A., Rinard, M.: A combined pointer and purity analysis for Java programs. Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-949, MIT (May 2004)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sites, R.L.: Proving that Computer Programs Terminate Cleanly. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Technical Report STAN-CS-74-418 (May 1974)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    van den Berg, J., Jacobs, B.: The LOOP compiler for java and JML. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 299–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Williams, M.: Microsoft Visual C# .NET. Microsoft Press (2002)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wing, J.M.: A two-tiered approach to specifying programs. PhD thesis, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science TR-299 (May 1983)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wulf, W.A., London, R.L., Shaw, M.: An introduction to the construction and verification of Alphard programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE- 2(4), 253–265 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Barnett
    • 1
  • K. Rustan M. Leino
    • 1
  • Wolfram Schulte
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations