Using Language Engineering to Lift Languages and Analyses at the Domain Level

  • Daniel Ratiu
  • Markus Voelter
  • Bernd Kolb
  • Bernhard Schaetz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7871)

Abstract

Developers who use C model checkers have to overcome three usability challenges: First, it is difficult to express application level properties as C-level verification conditions, due to the abstraction gap. Second, without advanced IDE support, it is difficult to interpret the counterexamples produced by the model checker and understand what went wrong in terms of application level properties. Third, most C model checkers support only a subset of C and it is easy for developers to inadvertently use C constructs outside this subset. In this paper we report on our preliminary experience with using the MPS language workbench to integrate the CBMC model checker with a set of domain-specific extensions of C for developing embedded software. Higher level language constructs such as components and decision tables makes it easier for end users to bridge the abstraction gap, to write verification conditions and to interpret the analysis results. Furthermore, the use of language workbenches allows the definition of analyzable language subsets, making the implementation of analyses simpler and their use more predictable.

Keywords

Zucker Veri Derrick 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Loer, K., Harrison, M.: Towards Usable and Relevant Model Checking Techniques for the Analysis of Dependable Interactive Systems. In: ASE (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Laubach, S., Păsăreanu, C., Zheng, H.: Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: ICSE 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Voelter, M., Ratiu, D., Schätz, B., Kolb, B.: mbeddr: an extensible c-based programming language and ide for embedded systems. In: SPLASH 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voelter, M.: Language and IDE Modularization and Composition with MPS. In: Lämmel, R., Saraiva, J., Visser, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7680, pp. 383–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratiu, D., Voelter, M., Schaetz, B., Kolb, B.: Language Engineering as Enabler for Incrementally Defined Formal Analyses. In: FORMSERA 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ratiu, D., Markus Voelter, Z.M., Schaetz, B.: Implementing modular domain specific languages and analyses. In: MoDEVVa 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janicki, R., Parnas, D.L., Zucker, J.: Tabular representations in relational documents. In: Relational Methods in Computer Science (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: An eclipse plug-in for model checking. In: IWPC 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ball, T., Cook, B., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: SLAM and static driver verifier: Technology transfer of formal methods inside microsoft. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G.P. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zalila, F., Crégut, X., Pantel, M.: Leveraging formal verification tools for DSML users: A process modeling case study. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7610, pp. 329–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Combemale, B., Gonnord, L., Rusu, V.: A Generic Tool for Tracing Executions Back to a DSML’s Operational Semantics. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Ratiu
    • 1
  • Markus Voelter
    • 2
  • Bernd Kolb
    • 3
  • Bernhard Schaetz
    • 1
  1. 1.FortissGermany
  2. 2.Independent/itemisGermany
  3. 3.ItemisGermany

Personalised recommendations