Advertisement

A Module Language for Typing SIGNAL Programs by Contracts

Chapter
  • 637 Downloads

Abstract

Methodological guidelines for the design of real-time embedded systems advise the validation of specifications as early as possible. Moreover, in a refinement-based development methodology of large embedded systems, an iterative validation of each refinement or modification made to the initial specification, until the implementation of the system is finalized, is highly desirable. Additionally, cooperative component-based development requires to use and to assemble components, which have been developed by different suppliers, in a safe and consistent way [11, 17]. These components have to be provided with their conditions of use and guarantees that they have been validated when these conditions are satisfied. These conditions of use and guarantees represent a notion of contract.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Partially funded by the EADS Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Composing specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 15(1), 73–132 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26(5), 109–120 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartetzko, D., Fischer, C., Möller, M., Wehrheim, H.: Jass – Java with assertions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 55(2), 1–15 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, J.L.: Boolean algebras and distributive lattices treated constructively. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 45, 135–143 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Passerone, R.: A generic model of contracts for embedded systems. Tech. Rep. 6214, INRIA Rennes (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benveniste, A., Caspi, P., Le Guernic, P., Marchand, H., Talpin, J.P., Tripakis, S.: A protocol for loosely time-triggered architectures. In: J. Sifakis, S.A. Vincentelli (eds.) EMSOFT ’02: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Embedded Software, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2491, pp. 252–265. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.P.: Compilation of polychronous dataflow equations. In this bookGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broy, M.: Compositional refinement of interactive systems. Journal of the ACM 44(6), 850–891 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B., Petrov, T.: Interface theories with component reuse. In: EMSOFT ’08: Proceedings of the 8th ACM international conference on Embedded software, pp. 79–88. ACM (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards, S., Lavagno, L., Lee, E.A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Design of embedded systems: formal models, validation, and synthesis. Proceedings of the IEEE 85(3), 366–390 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glouche, Y., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.P., Gautier, T.: A boolean algebra of contracts for logical assume-guarantee reasoning. Tech. Rep. 6570, INRIA Rennes (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glouche, Y., Talpin, J.P., Le Guernic, P., Gautier, T.: A boolean algebra of contracts for logical assume-guarantee reasoning. In: 6th International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glouche, Y., Talpin, J.P., Le Guernic, P., Gautier, T.: A module language for typing by contracts. In: E. Denney, D. Giannakopoulou, C.S. Păsăreanu (eds.) Proceedings of the First NASA Formal Methods Symposium, pp. 86–95. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halbwachs, N., Lagnier, F., Raymond, P.: Synchronous observers and the verification of reactive systems. In: AMAST ’93: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Methodology and Software Technology, pp. 83–96. Springer, Berlin (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kopetz, H.: Component-based design of large distributed real-time systems. Control Engineering Practice 6(1), 53–60 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: R. De Nicola (ed.) ESOP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le Guernic, P., Gautier, T., Le Borgne, M., Le Maire, C.: Programming real-time applications with SIGNAL. Proceedings of the IEEE 79(9), 1321–1336 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.P., Le Lann, J.C.: Polychrony for system design. Journal for Circuits, Systems and Computers 12(3), 261–304 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: JML: A notation for detailed design. In: H. Kilov, B. Rumpe, W. Harvey (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 175–188. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maraninchi, F., Morel, L.: Logical-time contracts for reactive embedded components. In: EUROMICRO, pp. 48–55. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marchand, H., Bournai, P., Le Borgne, M., Le Guernic, P.: Synthesis of discrete-event controllers based on the Signal environment. Discrete Event Dynamic System: Theory and Applications 10(4), 325–346 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marchand, H., Rutten, E., Le Borgne, M., Samaan, M.: Formal verification of programs specified with Signal: application to a power transformer station controller. Science of Computer Programming 41(1), 85–104 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitchell, R., McKim, J., Meyer, B.: Design by Contract, by Example. Addison Wesley Longman, Redwood City, CA (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raclet, J.B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Passerone, R.: Why are modalities good for interface theories? In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD’09), pp. 119–127. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA, Centre de Recherche de RennesRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations