Advertisement

OPEN/CÆSAR: An open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing

  • Hubert Garavel
Regular Sessions Design and Architecture
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1384)

Abstract

This paper presents the Open/CÆsar software architecture, which allows to integrate in a common framework different languages/formalisms for the description of concurrent systems, as well as tools with various functionalities, such as random execution, interactive simulation, on-the-fly and exhaustive verification, test generation, etc. These principles have been fully implemented, leading to an open, extensible, and well-documented programming environment, which allows tools to be developed in a modular framework, independently from any particular description language.

Keywords

Graph Module Label Transition System Source Language Source Program Compression Function 
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.
    B. Algayres, V. Coelho, L. Doldi, H. Garavel, Y. Lejeune, and C. Rodriguez. VESAR: A Pragmatic Approach to Formal Specification and Verification. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25(7):779–790, February 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Algayres, Y. Lejeune, and F. Hugonnet. GOAL: Observing SDL behaviors with GEODE. In Proc. 7th SDL Forum (Oslo, Norway), September 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Bouali, A. Ressouche, V. Roy, and R. de Simone. The Fc2Tools set: a Toolset for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. In Proc. CAV '96, LNCS 1102, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Chehaibar, H. Garavel, L. Mounier, N. Tawbi, and F. Zulian. Specification and Verification of the PowerScale Bus Arbitration Protocol: An Industrial Experiment with LOTOS. In Proc. FORTE/PSTV'96. Chapman & Hall, 1996. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-2958.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cleaveland, E. Madelaine, and S. Sims. A Front-End Generator for Verification Tools. In Proc. TACAS'95 Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (Aarhus, Denmark), May 1995. Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-2612.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Cousin and J. Helary. Performance Improvement of State Space Exploration by Regular and Differential Hashing Functions. In Proc. CAV'94, LNCS 818, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J-Cl. Fernandez, Cl. Jard, Th. Jéron, L. Nedelka, and C. Viho. An Experiment in Automatic Generation of Test Suites for Protocols with Verification Technology. Science of Computer Programming, 29(1–2):123–146, July 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J-Cl. Fernandez and L. Mounier. “On the Fly” Verification of Behavioural Equivalences and Preorders. In Proc. CAV'91, July 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J-Cl. Fernandez and L. Mounier. A Local Checking Algorithm for Boolean Equation Systems. Rapport SPECTRE 95-07, VERIMAG, Grenoble, March 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Garavel. An Overview of the Eucalyptus Toolbox. In Proc. COST 247 Int. Workshop on Applied Formal Methods in System Design (Maribor, Slovenia), 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Garavel and L. Mounier. Specification and Verification of various Distributed Leader Election Algorithms for Unidirectional Ring Networks. Science of Computer Programming, 29(1–2):171–197, July 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Garavel and J. Sifakis. Compilation and Verification of LOTOS Specifications. In Proc. PSTV '90 (Ottawa, Canada). North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Graf, J-L. Richier, C. Rodríguez, and J. Voiron. What are the Limits of Model Checking Methods for the Verification of Real Life Protocols? In Proc. 1st Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, LNCS 407, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. J. Holzmann. Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. J. Holzmann. State Compression in SPIN: Recursive Indexing and Compression Training Runs. In Proc. 3rd SPIN Workshop (Twente Univ., The Netherlands), 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cl. Jard and Th. Jéron. Bounded-Memory Algorithms for Verification On-the-Fly. In Proc. CAV '91, LNCS 575, July 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Kerbrat, C. Rodriguez, and Y. Lejeune. Interconnecting the ObjectGEODE and CÆSAR/ALDEBARAN Toolsets. In Proc. 8th SDL Forum, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J-P. Krimm and L. Mounier. Compositional State Space Generation from Lotos Programs. In Proc. TACAS'97, LNCS 1217, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Mateescu. Formal Description and Analysis of a Bounded Retransmission Protocol. In Proc. COST 247 Int. Workshop on Applied Formal Methods in System Design (Maribor, Slovenia), 1996. Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-2965.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Paige and R. E. Tarjan. Three Partition Refinement Algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing, 16(6):973–989, December 1987.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ch. Pecheur. Specification and Verification of the CO4 Distributed Knowledge System Using LOTOS. In Proc. 12th IEEE Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering ASE-97, 1997. Extended version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3259.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Sighireanu and R. Mateescu. Validation of the Link Layer Protocol of the IEEE-1394 Serial Bus (“FireWire”): an Experiment with E-LOTOS. In Proc. 2nd COST 247 Int. Workshop on Applied Formal Methods in System Design (Zagreb, Croatia), 1997. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-3172.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. B. Steel. A First Version of UNCOL. In Proc. Western Joint Computer Conf., pages 371–378, May 1961.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Garavel
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA RhÔne-Alpes and Dyade / Vasy groupMontbonnot St MartinFrance

Personalised recommendations