Advertisement

CADP 2010: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes

  • Hubert Garavel
  • Frédéric Lang
  • Radu Mateescu
  • Wendelin Serwe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6605)

Abstract

Cadp (Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes) is a comprehensive software toolbox that implements the results of concurrency theory. Started in the mid 80s, Cadp has been continuously developed by adding new tools and enhancing existing ones. Today, Cadp benefits from a worldwide user community, both in academia and industry. This paper presents the latest release Cadp 2010, which is the result of a considerable development effort spanning the last four years. The paper first describes the theoretical principles and the modular architecture of Cadp, which has inspired several other recent model checkers. The paper then reviews the main features of Cadp 2010, including compilers for various formal specification languages, equivalence checkers, model checkers, performance evaluation tools, and parallel verification tools running on clusters and grids.

Keywords

Model Check Equivalence Check Concurrent System Process Calculus State Space Exploration 
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.
    Andersen, H.R.: Model Checking and Boolean Graphs. TCS 126(1), 3–30 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergamini, D., Descoubes, N., Joubert, C., Mateescu, R.: BISIMULATOR: A Modular Tool for On-the-Fly Equivalence Checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 581–585. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berthomieu, B., Bodeveix, J.-P., Farail, P., Filali, M., Garavel, H., Gaufillet, P., Lang, F., Vernadat, F.: FIACRE: An Intermediate Language for Model Verification in the Topcased Environment. In: ERTS (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blom, S., Orzan, S.: Distributed state space minimization. STTT 7, 280–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., McKinty, C., Lang, F., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the Lotos NT to Lotos Translator (Version 5.1). Tech. Report INRIA/VASY, 117 pages (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chossart, R.: Évaluation d’outils de vérification pour les spécifications de systèmes d’information. Mémoire maître ès sciences, Univ. de Sherbrooke, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleaveland, R., Li, T., Sims, S.: The Concurrency Workbench of the New Century (Version 1.2). User’s Manual (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B.: The Concurrency Workbench. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coste, N., Garavel, H., Hermanns, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Ten Years of Performance Evaluation for Concurrent Systems Using CADP. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6416, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deavours, D.D., Sanders, W.H.: An Efficient Well-Specified Check. In: 8th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models, PNPM 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandez, J.-C.: ALDEBARAN : un système de vérification par réduction de processus communicants. Thèse de Doctorat, Univ. J. Fourier, Grenoble (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Garavel, H., Kerbrat, A., Mateescu, R., Mounier, L., Sighireanu, M.: Cadp (Caesar/Aldebarab Development Package): A Protocol Validation and Verification Toolbox. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Mounier, L.: “On the Fly” Verification of Behavioural Equivalences and Preorders. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation et vérification de programmes Lotos. Thèse de Doctorat, Univ. J. Fourier, Grenoble (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation of Lotos Abstract Data Types. In: FORTE (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CAESAR: An Open Software Architecture for Verification, Simulation, and Testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, p. 68. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garavel, H.: Reflections on the Future of Concurrency Theory in General and Process Calculi in Particular. In: LIX Colloquium on Emerging Trends in Concurrency Theory. ENTCS, vol. 209 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a Scripting Language for Compositional Verification. In: FORTE. IFIP (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An Overview of Cadp  2001. EASST Newsletter 4, 13–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Lang, F., Serwe, W.: CADP 2006: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 158–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Bergamini, D., Curic, A., Descoubes, N., Joubert, C., Smarandache, I., Stragier, G.: DISTRIBUTOR and BCGMERGE: Tools for Distributed Explicit State Space Generation. In: Hermanns, H. (ed.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 445–449. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Smarandache, I.: Parallel state space construction for model-checking. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, p. 217. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garavel, H., Salaün, G., Serwe, W.: On the Semantics of Communicating Hardware Processes and their Translation into Lotos for the Verification of Asynchronous Circuits with Cadp. SCP 74(3), 100–127 (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garavel, H., Serwe, W.: State Space Reduction for Process Algebra Specifications. TCS 351(2), 131–145 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and Verification of Lotos Specifications. In: PSTV. IFIP (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A Graphical Parallel Composition Operator for Process Algebras. In: FORTE/PSTV (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garavel, H., Thivolle, D.: Verification of GALS systems by combining synchronous languages and process calculi. In: Păsăreanu, C.S. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 5578, pp. 241–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garavel, H., Turlier, P.: Caesaradt: un compilateur pour les types abstraits algébriques du langage Lotos. In: Actes du CFIP (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Helmstetter, C.: TLM.Open: a SYSTEMC /TLM Front-End for the CADP Verification Toolbox, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00429070/
  30. 30.
    Helmstetter, C., Ponsini, O.: A Comparison of Two SystemC/TLM Semantics for Formal Verification. In: MEMOCODE (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hermanns, H.: Interactive Markov Chains and the Quest for Quantified Quality. In: Hermanns, H. (ed.) Interactive Markov Chains. LNCS, vol. 2428, p. 57. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hermanns, H., Joubert, C.: A Set of Performance and Dependability Analysis Components for CADP. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 425–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO/IEC. Lotos — A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1989)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ISO/IEC. Enhancements to Lotos (Elotos). International Standard 15437:2001, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khan, A.M.: Connection of Compositional Verification Tools for Embedded Systems. Mémoire master 2 recherche, Univ. J. Fourier, Grenoble (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: A flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lang, F., Salaün, G., Hérilier, R., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Translating FSP into LOTOS and Networks of Automata. FACJ 22(6), 681–711 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mader, A.: Verification of Modal Properties Using Boolean Equation Systems. Bertz, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs. Wiley, Chichester (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mateescu, R.: Vérification des propriétés temporelles des programmes parallèles. Thèse de Doctorat, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (April 1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mateescu, R.: Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems. In: Graf, S. (ed.) TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, p. 251. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mateescu, R.: Caesarsolve: A Generic Library for On-the-Fly Resolution of Alternation-Free Boolean Equation Systems. STTT 8(1), 37–56 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mateescu, R., Garavel, H.: Xtl: A Meta-Language and Tool for Temporal Logic Model-Checking. In: STTT. BRICS (1998)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G.: Translating Pi-Calculus into LOTOS NT. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mateescu, R., Sighireanu, M.: Efficient On-the-Fly Model-Checking for Regular Alternation-Free Mu-Calculus. SCP 46(3), 255–281 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A Model Checking Language for Concurrent Value-Passing Systems. In: Cuellar, J., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ponsini, O., Fédèle, C., Kounalis, E.: Rewriting of imperative programs into logical equations. SCP 56(3), 363–401 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ponsini, O., Serwe, W.: A Schedulerless Semantics of TLM Models Written in SystemC Via Translation into LOTOS. In: Cuellar, J., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schewe, S.: Solving Parity Games in Big Steps. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 449–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stevens, P., Stirling, C.: Practical Model-Checking Using Games. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, p. 85. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thivolle, D.: Langages modernes pour la vérification des systèmes asynchrones. PhD thesis, Univ. J. Fourier Grenoble and Polytechnic. Univ. of Bucharest (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Garavel
    • 1
  • Frédéric Lang
    • 1
  • Radu Mateescu
    • 1
  • Wendelin Serwe
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble, VASY teamMontbonnot St MartinFrance

Personalised recommendations