Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Could We Have Chosen a Better Loop Invariant or Method Contract?

  • Conference paper
Tests and Proofs (TAP 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5668))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The method contract and loop invariant rules (contract rules) are an important software verification technique for handling method invocations and loops. However, if a verification condition resulting from using a contract rule turns out to be falsifiable, then the user does not know if she could have chosen a stronger contract to verify the program or if the program is not verifiable due to a software bug. We approach this problem and present a novel technique that unifies verification and software bug detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Baar, T., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Giese, M., Hähnle, R., Menzel, W., Mostowski, W., Roth, A., Schlager, S., Schmitt, P.H.: The KeY tool. Software and System Modeling 4, 32–54 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 103–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett, M., DeLine, R., Fähndrich, M., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W., Venter, H.: The SPEC# programming system: Challenges and directions. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 144–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckert, B.: A dynamic logic for the formal verification of Java Card programs. In: Attali, I., Jensen, T. (eds.) JavaCard 2000. LNCS, vol. 2041, pp. 6–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Beckert, B., Gladisch, C.: White-box Testing by Combining Deduction-based Specification Extraction and Black-box Testing. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 207–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.): Verification of Object-Oriented Software. LNCS, vol. 4334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beckert, B., Schlager, S., Schmitt, P.H.: An improved rule for while loops in deductive program verification. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 315–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Claessen, K., Svensson, H.: Finding counter examples in induction proofs. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R. (eds.) TAP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4966, pp. 48–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Deng, X., Lee, J., Robby: Bogor/Kiasan: A k-bounded Symbolic Execution for Checking Strong Heap Properties of Open Systems. In: ASE, pp. 157–166 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Engel, C., Gladisch, C., Klebanov, V., Rümmer, P.: Integrating verification and testing of object-oriented software. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R. (eds.) TAP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4966, pp. 182–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Engel, C., Hähnle, R.: Generating Unit Tests from Formal Proofs. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 169–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C.: Multi-prover Verification of C Programs. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gladisch, C.: Verification-based testing for full feasible branch coverage. In: Proc. 6th IEEE Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2008). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gulavani, B.S., Henzinger, T.A., Kannan, Y., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: Synergy: a new algorithm for property checking. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 117–127 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harel, D.: Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Extensions of Classical Logic, vol. II, ch. 10, pp. 497–604. Reidel, Dordrecht (1984)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: POPL, pp. 58–70 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Online minimization of transition systems (extended abstract). In: STOC, pp. 264–274 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leino, K.R.M., Logozzo, F.: Loop invariants on demand. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3780, pp. 119–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Marché, C., Paulin, C., Urbain, X.: The Krakatoa tool for JML/Java program certification (2003), http://krakatoa.lri.fr

  20. Rümmer, P.: Sequential, parallel, and quantified updates of first-order structures. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4246, pp. 422–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Rümmer, P., Shah, M.A.: Proving programs incorrect using a sequent calculus for java dynamic logic. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 41–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Schulte, W., Songtao, X., Smans, J., Piessens, F.: A glimpse of a verifying C compiler. In: C/C++ Verification Workshop (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

    Christoph Gladisch

Authors
  1. Christoph Gladisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CÉDRIC-ENSIIE, 1 square de la résistance, 91025, Évry Cedex, France

    Catherine Dubois

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gladisch, C. (2009). Could We Have Chosen a Better Loop Invariant or Method Contract?. In: Dubois, C. (eds) Tests and Proofs. TAP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5668. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02949-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02949-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02948-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02949-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation