Polymorphic predicate abstraction

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 314-343

  Ball, Thomas ^a,c   Millstein, Todd ^b,d   Rajamani, Sriram K ^a,c  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c MICROSOFT   (United States)

^d University of California   (United States)

Author keywords

Polymorphism; Predicate abstraction; Software model checking

Indexed keywords

MODEL CHECKING ALGORITHMS; PREDICATE ABSTRACTION;

ABSTRACTING; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 27844563963     PISSN: 01640925     EISSN: 01640925     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1057387.1057391     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. BALL, T., MAJUMDAR, R., MILLSTEIN, T., AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2001a. Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In PLDI 01: Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, pp. 203-213.
2. BALL, T., PODELSKI, A., AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2001b. Boolean and Cartesian abstractions for model checking C programs. In TACAS 01: Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2031. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 268-283.
3. BALL, T. AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2000. Bebop: A symbolic model checker for Boolean programs. In SPIN 00: SPIN Workshop. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1885. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 113-130.
4. BALL, T. AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2001. Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In SPIN 01: SPIN Workshop. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2057. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 103-122.
5. BALL, T. AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2002a. Generating abstract explanations of spurious counterexamples in C programs. Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2002-09. Microsoft Research, Jan.
6. BALL, T. AND RAJAMANI, S. K. 2002b. The SLAM project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In POPL 02: Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, pp. 1-3.
7. CARDELLI, L. AND WEGNER, P. 1985. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. Comput. Surv. 17, 4, 471-522.
8. CLARKE, E., GRUMBERG, O., JHA, S., Lu, Y., AND VEITH, H. 2000. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In CAV 00: Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1855. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 154-169.
9. CORBETT, J., DWYER, M., HATCLIFF, J., PASAREANU, C., ROBBY, LAUBACH, S., AND ZHENG, H. 2000. Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In ICSE 2000: International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, pp. 439-448.
10. COUSOT, P. AND COUSOT, R. 1977. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for the static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In POPL 77: Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, pp. 238-252.
11. DAS, M. 2000. Unification-based pointer analysis with directional assignments. In PLDI 00: Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, pp. 35-46.
12. DAS, S., DILL, D. L., AND PARK, S. 1999. Experience with predicate abstraction. In CAV 00: Computer-Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1633. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 160-171.
13. DETLEFS, D., NELSON, G., AND SAXE, J. B. 2003. Simplify: A theorem prover for program checking. HP Labs Technical Report HPL-2003-148.
14. DIJKSTRA, E. 1976. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
15. DWYER, M., HATCLIFF, J., JOEHANES, R., LAUBACH, S., PASAREANU, C., ROBBY, VISSER, W., AND ZHENG, H. 2001. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In ICSE 01: International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, pp. 177-187.
16. ENGLER, D., CHELF, B., CHOU, A., AND HALLEM, S. 2000. Checking system rules using system-specific, programmer-written compiler extensions. In OSDI 00: Operating System Design and Implementation. Usenix Association.
17. FLANAGAN, C., LEINO, K. R. M., LILLIBRIDGE, M., NELSON, G., SAXE, J. B., AND STATA, R. 2002. Extended static checking for Java. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, pp. 234-245.
18. FLANAGAN, C. AND QADEER, S. 2002. Predicate abstraction for software verification. In POPL '02: Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, 191-202.
19. FOSTER, J. S., FAHNDRICH, M., AND AIKEN, A. 2000. Polymorphic versus monomorphic flow-insensitive points-to analysis for C. In SAS 00: Static Analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1824. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 175-198.
20. GRAF, S. AND SAÏDI, H. 1997. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In CAV 97: Computeraided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1254. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 72-83.
21. GRIES, D. 1981. The Science of Programming, Springer-Verlag, New York.
22. HAVELUND, K. AND PRESSBURGER, T. 1998. Model checking Java programs using Java PathFinder. Int. J. Softw. Tools Tech. Trans. 2, 4 (Apr.).
23. HENZINGER, T. A., JHALA, R., MAJUMDAR, R., AND MCMILLAN, K. L. 2004. Abstractions from proofs. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, pp. 232-244.
24. HENZINGER, T. A., JHALA, R., MAJUMDAR, R., AND SUTRE, G. 2002. Lazy abstraction. In POPL '02: Principles of Programming Languages (Jan.). ACM, New York, pp. 58-70.
25. HOLZMANN, G. 1997. The Spin model checker. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23, 5 (May), 279-295.
26. HOLZMANN, G. 2000. Logic verification of ANSI-C code with Spin. In SPIN 00: SPIN Workshop. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1885. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 131-147.
27. LANDI, W. AND RYDER, B. G. 1992. A safe approximate algorithm for interprocedural pointer aliasing. SIGPLAN Notices 27, 7, 235-248.
28. MILNER, R. 1978. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 17, 348-375.
29. MILNER, R., TOFTE, M., HARPER, R., AND MACQUEEN, D. 1997. The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
30. MORRIS, J. M. 1982. A general axiom of assignment. In Theoretical Foundations of Programming Methodology. Lecture Notes of an International Summer School, Reidel, pp. 25-34.
31. NELSON, G. 1981. Techniques for program verification. Tech. Rep. CSL81-10. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif.
32. REPS, T., HORWITZ, S., AND SAGIV, M. 1995. Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability. In POPL 95: Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, pp. 49-61.
33. SAÏDI, H. AND SHANKAR, N. 1999. Abstract and model check while you prove. In CAV 99: Computeraided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1633. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 443-454.
34. SHARIR, M. AND PNUELI, A. 1981. Two approaches to interprocedural data flow analysis. In Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, New York, pp. 189-233.
35. VISSER, W., PARK, S., AND PENIX, J. 2000. Using predicate abstraction to reduce object-oriented programs for model checking. In FMSP 00: Formal Methods in Software Practice. ACM, New York, pp. 3-12.
36. WILSON, R. P. AND LAM, M. S. 1995. Efficient context-sensitive pointer analysis for C programs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1995 conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, pp. 1-12.