Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hoare-Style Reasoning from Multiple Contracts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Integrated Formal Methods (IFM 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10510))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Modern software is often developed with advanced mechanisms for code reuse. A software module may build on other software modules or libraries where the source code is not available. And even if the source code is known, the binding mechanism may be such that the binding of methods is not known at verification time, and thus the underlying reused code cannot be determined. For example, in delta- oriented programming the binding of methods depends on the ordering of deltas in each product, making modular reasoning non-trivial. Similar problems occur with traits and subclassing. Reasoning inside a module must then be based on partial knowledge of the methods, typically given by contracts in the form of pairs of pre- and post-conditions, and one may not derive new properties by re-verification of the (unavailable) source code.

In the setting of Hoare logic, this gives some challenges to general rules for adaptation that goes beyond traditional systems for Hoare logic. We develop a novel way of reasoning from multiple contracts, which makes the traditional adaptation rules superfluous. The problem we address does not depend on the choice of programming language. We therefore focus on general rules rather than statement-specific rules. We show soundness and completeness for the suggested rules.

This work is supported by the Norwegian NRC projects IoTSec: Security of IoT and DiversIoT.

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 EPUB and 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

References

  1. Apt, K.R.: Ten years of Hoare’s logic: a survey - part I. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 3(4), 431–483 (1981)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Back, R.-J., Butler, M.: Exploring summation and product operators in the refinement calculus. In: Möller, B. (ed.) MPC 1995. LNCS, vol. 947, pp. 128–158. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi:10.1007/3-540-60117-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The Spec# programming system: an overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30569-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H.: Verification of Object-oriented Software: The KeY Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bijlsma, A., Matthews, P.A., Wiltink, J.G.: A sharp proof rule for procedures in WP semantics. Acta Inform. 26(5), 409–419 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Cook, S.A.: Soundness and completeness of an axiom system for program verification. SIAM J. Comput. 7(1), 70–90 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahl, O.-J.: Verifiable Programming. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Damiani, F., Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Schaefer, I., Yu, I.C.: A transformational proof system for delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 2 (SPLC 2012), pp. 53–60. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Din, C.C., Owe, O.: A sound and complete reasoning system for asynchronous communication with shared futures. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 83(5–6), 360–383 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Lazy behavioral subtyping. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 79(7), 578–607 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Incremental reasoning with lazy behavioral subtyping for multiple inheritance. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(10), 915–941 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O., Schärli, N., Wuyts, R., Black, A.P.: Traits: a mechanism for fine-grained reuse. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28(2), 331–388 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Groves, L.: Refinement and the Z schema calculus. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 70(3), 70–93 (2002). REFINE 2002 (The BCS FACS Refinement Workshop)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hähnle, R., Schaefer, I., Bubel, R.: Reuse in software verification by abstract method calls. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 300–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoare, C.A.R.: Procedures and parameters: an axiomatic approach. In: Engeler, E. (ed.) Symposium on Semantics of Algorithmic Languages. LNM, vol. 188, pp. 102–116. Springer, Heidelberg (1971). doi:10.1007/BFb0059696

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahony, B.P.: The least conjunctive refinement and promotion in the refinement calculus. Formal Aspects Comput. 11(1), 75–105 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Meyer, B.: Applying “design by contract”. IEEE Comput. 25(10), 40–51 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meyer, B.: Eiffel: The Language. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Olderog, E.-R.: On the notion of expressiveness and the rule of adaptation. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 24(3), 337–347 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Owe, O.: Notes on partial correctness. Research Report 26, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Owe, O.: On practical application of relational calculus. Research Report, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pierik, C., de Boer, F.S.: Modularity and the rule of adaptation. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 394–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27815-3_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Reif, W., Stenzel, K.: Reuse of proofs in software verification. Sadhana 21(2), 229–244 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Delta-oriented programming of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Schairer, A., Hutter, D.: Proof transformations for evolutionary formal software development. In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45719-4_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Schärli, N., Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O., Black, A.P.: Traits: composable units of behaviour. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, pp. 248–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45070-2_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Ward, N.: Adding specification constructors to the refinement calculus. In: Woodcock, J.C.P., Larsen, P.G. (eds.) FME 1993. LNCS, vol. 670, pp. 652–670. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi:10.1007/BFb0024672

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Zwiers, J., Hannemann, U., Lakhneche, Y., Stomp, F., de Roever, W.-P.: Modular completeness: integrating the reuse of specified software in top-down program development. In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 595–608. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi:10.1007/3-540-60973-3_109

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors are indebted to the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Olaf Owe, Toktam Ramezanifarkhani & Elahe Fazeldehkordi

Authors
  1. Olaf Owe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toktam Ramezanifarkhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elahe Fazeldehkordi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Olaf Owe , Toktam Ramezanifarkhani or Elahe Fazeldehkordi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Nadia Polikarpova

  2. University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

    Steve Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Owe, O., Ramezanifarkhani, T., Fazeldehkordi, E. (2017). Hoare-Style Reasoning from Multiple Contracts. In: Polikarpova, N., Schneider, S. (eds) Integrated Formal Methods. IFM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10510. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66845-1_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66845-1_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66844-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66845-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation