Advertisement

A semantics driven temporal verification system

  • G. D. Gough
  • H. Barringer
2. Program Development And Verification
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 300)

Abstract

We present an overview of SMG, a generic state machine generator, which interfaces to various temporal logic model checkers and provides a practical generic temporal verification system. SMG transforms programs written in user-definable languages to suitable finite state models. thus enabling fast verification of temporal properties of the input program. It can be applied, in particular, to the verification of temporal properties of concurrent and reactive systems.

Keywords

Model Checker Temporal Logic Decision Procedure Operational Semantic Computation Tree Logic 
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. [Bar87]
    H. Barringer. Using Temporal Logic in the Compositional Specification of Concurrent Systems. In A. P. Galton, editor, Temporal Logics and their Applications, chapter 2, pages 53–90, Academic Press Inc. Limited, London, December 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [BC86]
    M.C. Browne and E.M. Clarke. SML — a high level language for the design and verification of finite state machines. In From H.D.L. descriptions to guaranteed correct circuit designs, IFIP, September 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [BCDM84]
    M.C. Browne, E.M. Clarke, D. Dill, and B. Mishra. Automatic Verification of Sequential Circuits using Temporal Logic. Technical Report CS-85-100, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. [BG87]
    H. Barringer and G.D. Gough. Mechanisation of Temporal Logics. Part 1: Techniques. Temple internal report, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [BKP84]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper, and A. Pnueli. Now You May Compose Temporal Logic Specifications. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [BKP86]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper, and A. Pnueli. A Really Abstract Concurrent Model and its Temporal Logic. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, St. Petersberg Beach, Florida, January 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [Bro86]
    M.C. Browne. An improved algorithm for the automatic verification of finite state systems using temporal logic. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, December 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [CES86]
    E. M. Clarke, E. A. Emerson, and A. P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8(2):244–263, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [CGB86]
    E. M. Clarke, O. Grümberg, and M. C. Browne. Reasoning about networks with many identical finite-state processes. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, ACM, August 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [Gou84]
    G. D. Gough. Decision Procedures for Temporal Logic. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, October 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [Joh79]
    Stephen C. Johnson. Yacc: Yet another compiler-compiler. Unix Programmer's Manual Vol 2b, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [Lam83a]
    L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 5(2):190–222, July 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Lamb83b]
    L. Lamport. What good is temporal logic. In R. E. A. Mason, editor, Information Processing 83, pages 657–668, IFIP, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [Lam84]
    L. Lamport. An Axiomatic Semantics of Concurrent Programming Languages. In Krysztof Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 77–122, NATO, Springer-Verlag, La Colle-sur-Loup, France, October 1984.Google Scholar
  15. [MP82]
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Verification of Concurrent Programs: The Temporal Framework. In Robert S. Boyer and J. Strother Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press, London, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. [OL82]
    S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):455–495, July 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Pet81]
    G. L. Peterson. Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Information Processing Letters, 12(3):115–116, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Plo81]
    G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Department of Computer Science,Aarhus University, September 1981.Google Scholar
  19. [Pnu77]
    A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Programs. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, November 1977.Google Scholar
  20. [Pnu84]
    A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In Krysztof Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 123–144, NATO, Springer-Verlag, La Colle-sur-Loup, France, October 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [QS82]
    J. P. Queille and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 137, April 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. D. Gough
    • 1
  • H. Barringer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchester

Personalised recommendations