75,647 research outputs found

    Putting time into proof outlines

    Get PDF
    A logic for reasoning about timing of concurrent programs is presented. The logic is based on proof outlines and can handle maximal parallelism as well as resource-constrained execution environments. The correctness proof for a mutual exclusion protocol that uses execution timings in a subtle way illustrates the logic in action

    Modules and Logic Programming

    Full text link
    We study conditions for a concurrent construction of proof-nets in the framework developed by Andreoli in recent papers. We define specific correctness criteria for that purpose. We first study closed modules (i.e. validity of the execution of a logic program), then extend the criterion to open modules (i.e. validity during the execution) distinguishing criteria for acyclicity and connectability in order to allow incremental verification

    Towards a Unified Framework for Declarative Structured Communications

    Get PDF
    We present a unified framework for the declarative analysis of structured communications. By relying on a (timed) concurrent constraint programming language, we show that in addition to the usual operational techniques from process calculi, the analysis of structured communications can elegantly exploit logic-based reasoning techniques. We introduce a declarative interpretation of the language for structured communications proposed by Honda, Vasconcelos, and Kubo. Distinguishing features of our approach are: the possibility of including partial information (constraints) in the session model; the use of explicit time for reasoning about session duration and expiration; a tight correspondence with logic, which formally relates session execution and linear-time temporal logic formulas

    Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

    Full text link
    Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

    Simplifying proofs of linearisability using layers of abstraction

    Get PDF
    Linearisability has become the standard correctness criterion for concurrent data structures, ensuring that every history of invocations and responses of concurrent operations has a matching sequential history. Existing proofs of linearisability require one to identify so-called linearisation points within the operations under consideration, which are atomic statements whose execution causes the effect of an operation to be felt. However, identification of linearisation points is a non-trivial task, requiring a high degree of expertise. For sophisticated algorithms such as Heller et al's lazy set, it even is possible for an operation to be linearised by the concurrent execution of a statement outside the operation being verified. This paper proposes an alternative method for verifying linearisability that does not require identification of linearisation points. Instead, using an interval-based logic, we show that every behaviour of each concrete operation over any interval is a possible behaviour of a corresponding abstraction that executes with coarse-grained atomicity. This approach is applied to Heller et al's lazy set to show that verification of linearisability is possible without having to consider linearisation points within the program code

    Temporal Semantics for Concurrent METATEM

    Get PDF
    AbstractConcurrentMetateMis a programming language based on the notion of concurrent, communicating objects, where each object directly executes a specification given in temporal logic, and communicates with other objects using asynchronous broadcast message-passing. Thus, ConcurrentMetateMrepresents a combination of the direct execution of temporal specifications, together with a novel model of concurrent computation. In contrast to the notions of predicates as processes and stream parallelism seen in concurrent logic languages, ConcurrentMetateMrepresents a more coarse-grained approach, where an object consists of a set of logical rules and communication is achieved by the evaluation of certain types of predicate. Representing concurrent systems as groups of such objects provides a powerful tool for modelling complex reactive systems. In order to reason about the behaviour of ConcurrentMetateMsystems, we requir a suitable semantics. Being based upon executable temporal logic, objects in isolation have an intuitive semantics. However, the addition of both operational constraints upon the object's execution and global constraints provided by the asynchronous model of concurrency and communication, complicates the overall semantics of networks of objects. It is this, more complex, semantics that we address here, where temporal semantics for varieties of ConcurrentMetateMare provided

    Rewritings for Polarized Multiplicative and Exponential Proof Structures

    Get PDF
    13 pagesInternational audienceWe study conditions for a concurrent construction of proof-nets in the framework of linear logic following Andreoli's works. We define specific correctness criteria for that purpose. We first study the multiplicative case and show how the correctness criterion given by Danos and decidable in linear time, may be extended to closed modules (i.e. validity of polarized proof structures). We then study the exponential case. This has natural applications in (concurrent) logic programming as validity of partial proof structures may be interpreted in terms of validity of a concurrent execution of clauses in an environment

    Concurrent Data Structures Linked in Time

    Get PDF
    Arguments about correctness of a concurrent data structure are typically carried out by using the notion of linearizability and specifying the linearization points of the data structure's procedures. Such arguments are often cumbersome as the linearization points' position in time can be dynamic (depend on the interference, run-time values and events from the past, or even future), non-local (appear in procedures other than the one considered), and whose position in the execution trace may only be determined after the considered procedure has already terminated. In this paper we propose a new method, based on a separation-style logic, for reasoning about concurrent objects with such linearization points. We embrace the dynamic nature of linearization points, and encode it as part of the data structure's auxiliary state, so that it can be dynamically modified in place by auxiliary code, as needed when some appropriate run-time event occurs. We name the idea linking-in-time, because it reduces temporal reasoning to spatial reasoning. For example, modifying a temporal position of a linearization point can be modeled similarly to a pointer update in separation logic. Furthermore, the auxiliary state provides a convenient way to concisely express the properties essential for reasoning about clients of such concurrent objects. We illustrate the method by verifying (mechanically in Coq) an intricate optimal snapshot algorithm due to Jayanti, as well as some clients
    corecore