Verification of Imperative Programs by Constraint Logic Program Transformation

We present a method for verifying partial correctness properties of imperative programs that manipulate integers and arrays by using techniques based on the transformation of constraint logic programs (CLP). We use CLP as a metalanguage for representing imperative programs, their executions, and their properties. First, we encode the correctness of an imperative program, say prog, as the negation of a predicate 'incorrect' defined by a CLP program T. By construction, 'incorrect' holds in the least model of T if and only if the execution of prog from an initial configuration eventually halts in an error configuration. Then, we apply to program T a sequence of transformations that preserve its least model semantics. These transformations are based on well-known transformation rules, such as unfolding and folding, guided by suitable transformation strategies, such as specialization and generalization. The objective of the transformations is to derive a new CLP program TransfT where the predicate 'incorrect' is defined either by (i) the fact 'incorrect.' (and in this case prog is not correct), or by (ii) the empty set of clauses (and in this case prog is correct). In the case where we derive a CLP program such that neither (i) nor (ii) holds, we iterate the transformation. Since the problem is undecidable, this process may not terminate. We show through examples that our method can be applied in a rather systematic way, and is amenable to automation by transferring to the field of program verification many techniques developed in the field of program transformation.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

Designing Software Architectures As a Composition of Specializations of Knowledge Domains

This paper summarizes our experimental research and software development activities in designing robust, adaptable and reusable software architectures. Several years ago, based on our previous experiences in object-oriented software development, we made the following assumption: ‘A software architecture should be a composition of specializations of knowledge domains’. To verify this assumption we carried out three pilot projects. In addition to the application of some popular domain analysis techniques such as use cases, we identified the invariant compositional structures of the software architectures and the related knowledge domains. Knowledge domains define the boundaries of the adaptability and reusability capabilities of software systems. Next, knowledge domains were mapped to object-oriented concepts. We experienced that some aspects of knowledge could not be directly modeled in terms of object-oriented concepts. In this paper we describe our approach, the pilot projects, the experienced problems and the adopted solutions for realizing the software architectures. We conclude the paper with the lessons that we learned from this experience

The C++0x "Concepts" Effort

C++0x is the working title for the revision of the ISO standard of the C++ programming language that was originally planned for release in 2009 but that was delayed to 2011. The largest language extension in C++0x was "concepts", that is, a collection of features for constraining template parameters. In September of 2008, the C++ standards committee voted the concepts extension into C++0x, but then in July of 2009, the committee voted the concepts extension back out of C++0x. This article is my account of the technical challenges and debates within the "concepts" effort in the years 2003 to 2009. To provide some background, the article also describes the design space for constrained parametric polymorphism, or what is colloquially know as constrained generics. While this article is meant to be generally accessible, the writing is aimed toward readers with background in functional programming and programming language theory. This article grew out of a lecture at the Spring School on Generic and Indexed Programming at the University of Oxford, March 2010

Proving theorems by program transformation

In this paper we present an overview of the unfold/fold proof method, a method for proving theorems about programs, based on program transformation. As a metalanguage for specifying programs and program properties we adopt constraint logic programming (CLP), and we present a set of transformation rules (including the familiar unfolding and folding rules) which preserve the semantics of CLP programs. Then, we show how program transformation strategies can be used, similarly to theorem proving tactics, for guiding the application of the transformation rules and inferring the properties to be proved. We work out three examples: (i) the proof of predicate equivalences, applied to the verification of equality between CCS processes, (ii) the proof of first order formulas via an extension of the quantifier elimination method, and (iii) the proof of temporal properties of infinite state concurrent systems, by using a transformation strategy that performs program specialization

Proving Correctness of Imperative Programs by Linearizing Constrained Horn Clauses

We present a method for verifying the correctness of imperative programs which is based on the automated transformation of their specifications. Given a program prog, we consider a partial correctness specification of the form $\{\varphi\}$ prog $\{\psi\}$, where the assertions $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are predicates defined by a set Spec of possibly recursive Horn clauses with linear arithmetic (LA) constraints in their premise (also called constrained Horn clauses). The verification method consists in constructing a set PC of constrained Horn clauses whose satisfiability implies that $\{\varphi\}$ prog $\{\psi\}$ is valid. We highlight some limitations of state-of-the-art constrained Horn clause solving methods, here called LA-solving methods, which prove the satisfiability of the clauses by looking for linear arithmetic interpretations of the predicates. In particular, we prove that there exist some specifications that cannot be proved valid by any of those LA-solving methods. These specifications require the proof of satisfiability of a set PC of constrained Horn clauses that contain nonlinear clauses (that is, clauses with more than one atom in their premise). Then, we present a transformation, called linearization, that converts PC into a set of linear clauses (that is, clauses with at most one atom in their premise). We show that several specifications that could not be proved valid by LA-solving methods, can be proved valid after linearization. We also present a strategy for performing linearization in an automatic way and we report on some experimental results obtained by using a preliminary implementation of our method.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Proceedings of ICLP 201

Finite Countermodel Based Verification for Program Transformation (A Case Study)

Both automatic program verification and program transformation are based on program analysis. In the past decade a number of approaches using various automatic general-purpose program transformation techniques (partial deduction, specialization, supercompilation) for verification of unreachability properties of computing systems were introduced and demonstrated. On the other hand, the semantics based unfold-fold program transformation methods pose themselves diverse kinds of reachability tasks and try to solve them, aiming at improving the semantics tree of the program being transformed. That means some general-purpose verification methods may be used for strengthening program transformation techniques. This paper considers the question how finite countermodels for safety verification method might be used in Turchin's supercompilation method. We extract a number of supercompilation sub-algorithms trying to solve reachability problems and demonstrate use of an external countermodel finder for solving some of the problems.Comment: In Proceedings VPT 2015, arXiv:1512.0221

Clafer: Lightweight Modeling of Structure, Behaviour, and Variability

Embedded software is growing fast in size and complexity, leading to intimate mixture of complex architectures and complex control. Consequently, software specification requires modeling both structures and behaviour of systems. Unfortunately, existing languages do not integrate these aspects well, usually prioritizing one of them. It is common to develop a separate language for each of these facets. In this paper, we contribute Clafer: a small language that attempts to tackle this challenge. It combines rich structural modeling with state of the art behavioural formalisms. We are not aware of any other modeling language that seamlessly combines these facets common to system and software modeling. We show how Clafer, in a single unified syntax and semantics, allows capturing feature models (variability), component models, discrete control models (automata) and variability encompassing all these aspects. The language is built on top of first order logic with quantifiers over basic entities (for modeling structures) combined with linear temporal logic (for modeling behaviour). On top of this semantic foundation we build a simple but expressive syntax, enriched with carefully selected syntactic expansions that cover hierarchical modeling, associations, automata, scenarios, and Dwyer's property patterns. We evaluate Clafer using a power window case study, and comparing it against other notations that substantially overlap with its scope (SysML, AADL, Temporal OCL and Live Sequence Charts), discussing benefits and perils of using a single notation for the purpose