Advertisement

Checking Data Structure Properties Orders of Magnitude Faster

  • Emmanouil Koukoutos
  • Viktor Kuncak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8734)

Abstract

Executable formal contracts help verify a program at runtime when static verification fails. However, these contracts may be prohibitively slow to execute, especially when they describe the transformations of data structures. In fact, often an efficient data structure operation with O(log(n)) running time executes in O(n log(n)) when naturally written specifications are executed at run time.

We present a set of techniques that improve the efficiency of run-time checks by orders of magnitude, often recovering the original asymptotic behavior of operations. Our implementation first removes any statically verified parts of checks. Then, it applies a program transformation that changes recursively computed properties into data structure fields, ensuring that properties are evaluated no more than once on a given data structure node. We present evaluation of our techniques on the Leon system for verification of purely functional programs.

Keywords

Space Usage Program Transformation Element Insertion Binary Search Tree Formal Contract 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blanc, R.W., Kneuss, E., Kuncak, V., Suter, P.: An overview of the Leon verification system: Verification by translation to recursive functions. In: Scala Workshop (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 34(2), 7:1–7:52 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flanagan, C.: Hybrid type checking. In: Morrisett, J.G., Jones, S.L.P. (eds.) POPL, pp. 245–256. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hughes, J.: Lazy memo-functions. In: Jouannaud, J.-P. (ed.) FPCA 1985. LNCS, vol. 201, pp. 129–146. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michie, D.: Memo functions and machine learning. Nature 218(5136), 19–22 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okasaki, C.: Functional data structures. In: Launchbury, J., Sheard, T., Meijer, E. (eds.) AFP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1129, pp. 131–158. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shankar, A., Bodik, R.: Ditto: automatic incrementalization of data structure invariant checks (in Java). ACM SIGPLAN Notices 42, 310–319 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suter, P., Köksal, A.S., Kuncak, V.: Satisfiability modulo recursive programs. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) SAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 298–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swift, T., Warren, D.S.: Xsb: Extending Prolog with tabled logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12(1-2), 157–187 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanouil Koukoutos
    • 1
  • Viktor Kuncak
    • 1
  1. 1.EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations