Advertisement

Abstract

This report describes the 3rd International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2014), which is the third edition of a thorough comparative evaluation of fully automatic software verifiers. The reported results represent the state of the art in automatic software verification, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The verification tasks of the competition consist of nine categories containing a total of 2 868 C programs, covering bit-vector operations, concurrent execution, control-flow and integer data-flow, device-drivers, heap data structures, memory manipulation via pointers, recursive functions, and sequentialized concurrency. The specifications include reachability of program labels and memory safety. The competition is organized as a satellite event at TACAS 2014 in Grenoble, France.

Keywords

False Alarm Model Check Symbolic Execution Demonstration Category Bound Model Check 
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.
    Beyer, D.: Competition on software verification (SV-COMP). In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 504–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer, D.: Second competition on software verification. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 594–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker Blast. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 9(5-6), 505–525 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D., Löwe, S., Novikov, E., Stahlbauer, A., Wendler, P.: Precision reuse for efficient regression verification. In: Proc. ESEC/FSE, pp. 389–399. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer, D., Wendler, P.: Reuse of verification results - conditional model checking, precision reuse, and verification witnesses. In: Bartocci, E., Ramakrishnan, C.R. (eds.) SPIN 2013. LNCS, vol. 7976, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brockschmidt, M., Cook, B., Fuhs, C.: Better termination proving through cooperation. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 413–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dudka, K., Peringer, P., Vojnar, T.: Predator: A shape analyzer based on symbolic memory graphs (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 412–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ermis, E., Nutz, A., Dietsch, D., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Ultimate Kojak (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 421–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falke, S., Merz, F., Sinz, C.: LLBMC: Improved bounded model checking of C programs using LLVM (Competition contribution). In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 623–626. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R.: AProVE 1.2: Automatic termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 281–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with Pvs. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albarghouthi, A., Gurfinkel, A., Li, Y., Chaki, S., Chechik, M.: UFO: Verification with interpolants and abstract interpretation. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 637–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gurfinkel, A., Belov, A.: FrankenBit: Bit-precise verification with many bits (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 408–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heizmann, M., Christ, J., Dietsch, D., Hoenicke, J., Lindenmann, M., Musa, B., Schilling, C., Wissert, S., Podelski, A.: Ultimate automizer with unsatisfiable cores (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 418–420. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heizmann, M., Hoenicke, J., Leike, J., Podelski, A.: Linear ranking for linear lasso programs. In: Van Hung, D., Ogawa, M. (eds.) ATVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8172, pp. 365–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: Proc. POPL, pp. 58–70. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inverso, O., Tomasco, E., Fischer, B., La Torre, S., Parlato, G.: Lazy-CSeq: A lazy sequentialization tool for C (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 398–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, N.D., Muchnick, S.S.: A flexible approach to interprocedural data-flow analysis and programs with recursive data structures. In: POPL, pp. 66–74 (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kröning, D., Sharygina, N., Tsitovich, A., Wintersteiger, C.M.: Termination analysis with compositional transition invariants. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kröning, D., Tautschnig, M.: CBMC – C bounded model checker (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 389–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Löwe, S., Mandrykin, M., Wendler, P.: CPAchecker with sequential combination of explicit-value analyses and predicate analyses (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 392–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morse, J., Ramalho, M., Cordeiro, L., Nicole, D., Fischer, B.: ESBMC 1.22 (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 405–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muller, P., Vojnar, T.: CPAlien: Shape analyzer for CPAChecker (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 395–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: A complete method for the synthesis of linear ranking functions. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 239–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Threader: A verifier for multi-threaded programs (Competition contribution). In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 633–636. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rocha, H., Barreto, R., Cordeiro, L., Neto, A.D.: Understanding programming bugs in ANSI-C software using bounded model checking counter-examples. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shved, P., Mandrykin, M., Mutilin, V.: Predicate analysis with BLAST 2.7. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 525–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Slaby, J., Strejček, J.: Symbiotic 2: More precise slicing (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 415–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomasco, E., Inverso, O., Fischer, B., La Torre, S., Parlato, G.: MU-CSeq: Sequentialization of C programs by shared memory unwindings (Competition contribution). In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 402–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urban, C., Miné, A.: An abstract domain to infer ordinal-valued ranking functions. In: Shao, Z. (ed.) ESOP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8410, pp. 412–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Beyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PassauGermany

Personalised recommendations