A compositional proof theory for real-time distributed message passing
A compositional proof system is given for an OCCAM-like real-time programming language for distributed computing with communication via synchronous message passing. This proof system is based on specifications of processes which are independent of the program text of these processes. These specifications state (1) the assumptions of a process about the behaviour of its environment, and (2) the commitments of that process towards that environment provided these assumptions are met. The proof system is sound w.r.t a denotational semantics which incorporates assumptions regarding actions of the environment, thereby closely approximating the assumption/commitment style of reasoning on which the proof system is based. Concurrency is modelled as "maximal parallelism"; that is, if a process can proceed it will do so immediately. A process only waits when no local action is possible and no partner is available for communication. This maximality property is imposed on the domain of interpretation of assertions by postulating it as separate axiom. The timing behaviour of a system is expressed from the viewpoint of a global external observer, so there is a global notion of time. Time is not necessarily discrete.
KeywordsProof System Parallel Composition Correctness Formula Communicate Sequential Process Denotational Semantic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [deB]de Bakker, J.W., Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness, Prentice Hall, (1980).Google Scholar
- [Glass]Glass, R.L., The "Lost world" of Software Debugging and Testing, CACM 23, (1980), 264–271.Google Scholar
- [Hoare]Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes, CACM 21, (1978), 666–677.Google Scholar
- [H]Hooman, J., A Compositional Proof Theory for Real-Time Distributed Message Passing, Tech. Report CSN86/10, Eindhoven University of Technology, (1987).Google Scholar
- [HdeR]Hooman, J., de Roever, W.P., The quest goes on: a survey of proof systems for partial correctness of CSP, Current Trends in Concurrency, LNCS 224, (1986), 343–395.Google Scholar
- [HGR]Huizing, C., Gerth, R., de Roever, W.P., Full Abstraction of a Real-Time Denotational Semantics for an OCCAM-like Language, POPL 87, (1987), 223–237.Google Scholar
- [KSRGA]Koymans, R., Shyamasundar, R.K., de Roever, W.P., Gerth, R., Arun-Kumar, S., Compositional Semantics for Real-Time Distributed Computing, Report no. 68, University of Nijmegen, to appear in Information and Control, (1986).Google Scholar
- [La]Lamport, L., What Good Is Temporal Logic?, Information Processing 83, R.E. Manson (ed.), North Holland, (1983), 190–222.Google Scholar
- [Z]Zwiers, J., Ph.D. Thesis, to appear, Eindhoven University of Technology, (June 1987).Google Scholar
- [ZBR]Zwiers, J., de Bruin, A., de Roever, W.P., A proof system for partial correctness of dynamic networks, Logics of Programs 83, LNCS 164, (1983).Google Scholar
- [ZRE84]Zwiers, J., de Roever, W.P., van Emde Boas, P., Compositionality and concurrent networks: soundness and completeness of a proofsystem, Report no. 57, University of Nijmegen, (1984).Google Scholar
- [ZRE]Zwiers, J., de Roever, W.P., van Emde Boas, P., Compositionality and concurrent networks: soundness and completeness of a proofsystem, ICALP 85, LNCS 194, (1985).Google Scholar