Validation und Verifikation von Software durch symbolische Ausführung

  • Ralf Kneuper
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)

Zusammenfassung

Die Grundidee der symbolischen Ausführung ist es, ein Programm auszuführen, ohne Werte für die Eingabevariablen anzugeben. Auf diese Weise erhält man ein Verfahren zur Validation und Verifikation von Programmen, das zwischen formalem Korrektheitsbeweis und Testen liegt.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. [BGW82]
    R.M. Balzer, N.M. Goldman, und D.S. Wile. Operational specification as the basis for rapid prototyping. ACM Sigsoft Software Engineering Notes, 7(5):3–16, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bur74]
    R.M. Burstall. Program proving as hand simulation with a little induction. In Information Processing ’74. North-Holland Pubi. Co., 1974.Google Scholar
  3. [CH79]
    D. Coleman und J.W. Hughes. The clean termination of Pascal programs. Acta Informatica, 11: 195–210, 1979.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [Coh83]
    Donald. Cohen. Symbolic execution of the GIST specification language. In Proc. 8th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence ’83 (IJCAI-83%) S. 17–21, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [CR84]
    Lori A. Clarke und Debra J. Richardson. Symbolic evaluation — an aid to testing and verification. In Hans-Ludwig Hausen, Editor, Software Validation, S. 141–166. North-Holland, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [CSB82]
    D. Cohen, W. Swartout, und R. Balzer. Using symbolic execution to characterize behavior. ACM Sigsoft Software Engineering Notes, 7(5):25–32, Dezember 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Dav73]
    Martin Davis. Hilbert’s tenth problem is unsolvable. American Mathematical Monthly, 80: 233–269, 1973.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [Dil90]
    Laura K. Dillon. Using symbolic execution for verification of Ada tasking programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 12: 643–669, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [HK76]
    Sidney L. Hantier und James C. King. An introduction to proving the correctness of programs. ACM Computing Surveys, 8(3):331–353, September 1976.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [How78]
    William E. Howden. An evaluation of the effectiveness of symbolic testing. Software — Practice and Experience, 8: 381–397, 1978.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [JJLM91]
    C.B. Jones, K.D. Jones, P.A. Lindsay, und R.C. Moore, mural — A Formal Development Support System. Springer-Verlag, 1991. With contributions from J. Bicarregui, M. Elvang-Goransson, R. Fields, R. Kneuper, B. Ritchie, A.C. Wills.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [Kne91]
    Ralf Kneuper. Symbolic execution: a semantic approach. Science of Computer Programming, 16: 207–249, 1991.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [Lig90]
    Peter Liggesmeyer. Modultest und Modulverifikation. State of the Art. BI Wissenschaftsverlag, 1990.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [Spi86]
    Andreas Spillner. Aufdeckung von Codesequenzen, die nach Integration dynamisch nicht mehr erreichbar sind. Software-Technik Trends, 6(l):25–29, Juni 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [Swa83]
    William R. Swartout. The GIST behavior explainer. Research report ISI/RS-83–3, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Juli 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [Zav84]
    Pamela Zave. The operational versus the conventional approach to software development. Communications of the ACM, 27(2):104–118, Februar 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Kneuper
    • 1
  1. 1.DarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations