Advertisement

Invariant Synthesis for Programs Manipulating Lists with Unbounded Data

  • Ahmed Bouajjani
  • Cezara Drăgoi
  • Constantin Enea
  • Ahmed Rezine
  • Mihaela Sighireanu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6174)

Abstract

We address the issue of automatic invariant synthesis for sequential programs manipulating singly-linked lists carrying data over infinite data domains. We define for that a framework based on abstract interpretation which combines a specific finite-range abstraction on the shape of the heap with an abstract domain on sequences of data, considered as a parameter of the approach. We instantiate our framework by introducing different abstractions on data sequences allowing to reason about various aspects such as their sizes, the sums or the multisets of their elements, or relations on their data at different (linearly ordered or successive) positions. To express the latter relations we define a new domain whose elements correspond to an expressive class of first order universally quantified formulas. We have implemented our techniques in an efficient prototype tool and we have shown that our approach is powerful enough to generate non-trivial invariants for a significant class of programs.

Keywords

Pointer Variable Abstract Interpretation Fibonacci Sequence Abstract Domain Input List 
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.
    Bouajjani, A., Bozga, M., Habermehl, P., Iosif, R., Moro, P., Vojnar, T.: Programs with lists are counter automata. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 517–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouajjani, A., Dragoi, C., Enea, C., Rezine, A., Sighireanu, M.: Invariant synthesis for programs manipulating lists with unbounded data. Research report 00473754, HAL (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozga, M., Habermehl, P., Iosif, R., Konecný, F., Vojnar, T.: Automatic verification of integer array programs. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 157–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarisó, R., Cortadella, J.: The octahedron abstract domain. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 312–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL, pp. 238–252 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Proc. of POPL, pp. 269–282 (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Proc. of POPL, pp. 84–96 (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gopan, D., Reps, T.W., Sagiv, S.: A framework for numeric analysis of array operations. In: Proc. of POPL, pp. 338–350 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gotsman, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B.: Interprocedural shape analysis with separated heap abstractions. In: Yi, K. (ed.) SAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4134, pp. 240–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gulwani, S., Lev-Ami, T., Sagiv, M.: A combination framework for tracking partition sizes. In: Proc. of POPL, pp. 239–251 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulwani, S., McCloskey, B., Tiwari, A.: Lifting abstract interpreters to quantified logical domains. In: Proc. of POPL, pp. 235–246 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halbwachs, N., Péron, M.: Discovering properties about arrays in simple programs. In: Proc. of PLDI, pp. 339–348 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeannet, B., Miné, A.: Apron: A library of numerical abstract domains for static analysis. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 661–667. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Array abstractions from proofs. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 193–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manevich, R., Yahav, E., Ramalingam, G., Sagiv, S.: Predicate abstraction and canonical abstraction for singly-linked lists. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 181–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perrelle, V., Halbwachs, N.: An analysis of permutations in arrays. In: Barthe, G. (ed.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, pp. 279–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sagiv, S., Reps, T.W., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 24(3), 217–298 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vafeiadis, V.: Shape-value abstraction for verifying linearizability. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 335–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Bouajjani
    • 1
  • Cezara Drăgoi
    • 1
  • Constantin Enea
    • 1
  • Ahmed Rezine
    • 2
  • Mihaela Sighireanu
    • 1
  1. 1.LIAFAUniversity of Paris Diderot and CNRSParis 13France
  2. 2.Uppsala UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations