Advertisement

Abstract

The engineering of an everyday broader spectrum of systems requires reasoning on a combination of synchronous and asynchronous interaction, ranging from co-designed hardware-software architectures, multi-threaded reactive systems to distributed telecommunication applications. Stepping from the synchronous specification of a system to its distributed implementation requires to address the crucial issue of desynchronization: how to preserve the meaning of the synchronous design on a distributed architecture? We study this issue by considering a simple Sccs-like calculus of synchronous processes. In this context, we formulate the properties of determinism and of robustness to desynchronization. To check a specification robust to desynchronization, we consider a canonical representation of synchronous processes that makes control explicit. We show that the satisfaction of the property of determinism and of robustness to desynchronization amounts to a satisfaction problem which consists of hierarchically checking boolean formula.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Synchronous Process Asynchronous Interaction Asynchronous Network Synchronous Programming 
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]
    A. Benveniste, P. Le Guernic, C. Jacquemot. Synchronous programming with events and relations: the SIGNAL language and its semantics. In Science of Computer Programming, v. 16, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Benveniste, B. Caillaud, P. Le Guernic. From synchrony to asynchrony. International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Lectures Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Berry, G. Gonthier. The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. In Science of Computer Programming, v. 19, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Berry, E. Sentovich. An Implementation of Constructive Synchronous Constructive Programs in Polis. Formal Methods in Systems Design 17(2). Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L.P. Carloni, K.L. Mcmillan, A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Latency Insensitive Protocols. In International conference on computer-aided verification. Lectures Notes in Computer Science n. 1633. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Caspi. Clocks in dataflow languages. In Theoretical Computer Science, v. 94. Elsevier, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Caspi, A. Girault, C. Jard. Distributed reactive systems. In International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems. ISCA, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    N. Halbwachs, P. Caspi, P. Raymond, D. Pilaud. The synchronous data-flow programming language LUSTRE. In Proceedings of the IEEE, V. 79(9). IEEE, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. Marchand, E. Rutten, M. Le Borgne, M. Samaan. Formal Verification of SIGNAL programs: Application to a Power Transformer Station Controller. Science of Computer Programming, v. 41 (1), pp. 85–104, 2001.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Milner. Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. In Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Pnueli, A., Shankar, N., Singerman, E. Fair transition systems and their liveness proofs. In International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-time and Fault-tolerant Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Rajan, B., Shyamasundar, R., K. Modeling distributed embedded systems in multiclock EsTEREL. In Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols. Kluwer, October 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Pierre Talpin
    • 1
  1. 1.Inria project Espresso — IrisaRennes cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations