Friends Need a Bit More: Maintaining Invariants over Shared State

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3125, Issue , 2004, Pages 54-84

  Barnett, Mike ^a   Naumann, David A ^b  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^b STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTERS;

MODULAR VERIFICATION; OBJECT-ORIENTED PROGRAM; OWNERSHIP TYPE; PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY; SHARED STATE; SOUNDNESS PROOFS;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 35048827919     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-27764-4_5     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. [AO97] K.R. Apt and E.-R. Olderog. Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs. Springer, 2 edition, 1997.
2. +03b].
3. +03b] M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, K.R.M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Manuscript KRML 122b, December 2003. Available from http://research.microsoft. comrieino/papers.html.
4. [BLS03] C. Boyapati, B. Liskov, and L. Shrira. Ownership types for object encapsulation. In POPL, pages 213-223, 2003.
5. [BN02a] A. Banerjee and D.A. Naumann. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Extended version of [BN02b]. Available from http://www.cs.stevens-tech.edu/~naumann/oceri.ps, 2002.
6. [BN02b] A. Banerjee and D.A. Naumann. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In POPL, pages 166-177, 2002.
7. [BN03] A. Banerjee and D.A. Naumann. Ownership transfer and abstraction. Technical Report TR 2004-1, Computing and Information Sciences, Kansas State University, 2003.
8. [BS03] M.Barnett and W. Schulte. Runtime verification of NET contracts. The Journal of Systems and Software, 65(3):199-208, 2003.
9. [CD02] D. Clarke and S. Drossopoulou. Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. In OOPSLA, November 2002.
10. [CL02] Y.Cheon and G.T. Leavens. A runtime assertion checker for the Java Modeling Language (JML). In H.R. Arabnia and Y. Mun, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP '02), Las Vegas, Nevada. USA, June 24-27, 2002, pages 322-328. CSREA Press, June 2002.
11. [Cla01] D. Clarke. Object ownership and containment. Dissertation, Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia, 2001.
12. [CNP01] D.G. Clarke, J. Noble, and J.M. Potter. Simple ownership types for object containment. In ECOOP, 2001.
13. [DF01] R. DeLine and M. Fähndrich. Enforcing high-level protocols in low-level software. In PLDI, pages 59-69, 2001.
14. [DF03] R. DeLine and M. Fähndrich. The Fugue protocol checker: Is your software baroque? Available from http://research.microsoft.com/~maf/papers. html, 2003.
15. [DLNS98] D.L. Detlefs, K.R.M. Leino, G. Nelson, and J.B. Saxe. Extended static checking. Research Report 159, Compaq Systems Research Center, December 1998.
16. + 01] W.-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University, 2001.
17. + 02] C. Flanagan, K.R.M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J.B. Saxe, and R. Stata. Extended static checking for Java. In PLDI, pages 234-245, 2002.
18. [Gun00] E. Gunnerson. A Programmer's Introduction to C#. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
19. [Jon83] C.B. Jones. Tentative steps towards a development method for interfering programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 5(4):596-619, 1983.
20. [LG86] B. Liskov and J. Guttag. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. MIT Press, 1986.
21. [LM04] K.R.M. Leino and P. Müller. Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In ECOOP, 2004. To appear.
22. [LN02] K.R.M. Leino and G. Nelson. Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 24(5):491-553, 2002.
23. [LW94] B.H. Liskov and J.M. Wing. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(6), 1994.
24. [Mey97] B. Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York, second edition, 1997.
25. [MPHL03] P. Müller, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, and G.T. Leavens. Modular invariants for object structures. Technical Report 424, ETH Zürich, Chair of Software Engineering, October 2003.
26. [Mü102] P. Müller. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. Number 2262 in LNCS. Springer, 2002.
27. [NB04] D.A. Naumann and M. Barnett. Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract). In LICS, 2004. To appear.
28. [OYR04] P.W. O'Hearn, H. Yang, and J.C. Reynolds. Separation and information hiding. In POPL, pages 268-280, 2004.
29. [PdB03] C. Pierik and F.S. de Boer. A syntax-directed Hoare logic for object-oriented programming concepts. In FMOODS, pages 64-78, 2003.
30. [Rey02] J.C. Reynolds. Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS, pages 55-74, 2002.