Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state

Proceedings - Symposium on Logic in Computer Science

Volumn 19, Issue , 2004, Pages 313-322

  Naumann, David A ^a   Barnett, Mike ^b  

^a STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; DATA STRUCTURES; FORMAL LOGIC; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEMANTICS;

FORMAL REASONING; IMPERATIVE PROGRAMS; STANDARD SEMANTIC MODEL;

MODULA (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE);

EID: 4544323610     PISSN: 10436871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/lics.2004.1319626     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. A. W. Appel. Foundational proof-carrying code. In LICS, pages 247-258, 2001.
2. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Extended version of [3], submitted.
3. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In POPL, pages 166-177, 2002.
4. M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, K. R. M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. In Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs, 2003. Available as Technical Report 408, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich. A newer version is [5].
5. M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, K. R. M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Manuscript KRML 122b, Dec. 2003. Available from http://research.microsoft.com/~leino/papers.html.
6. M. Barnett and D. A. Naumann. Friends need a bit more: Maintaining invariants over shared state. In Mathematics of Program Construction, 2004. To appear.
7. C. Boyapati, B. Liskov, and L. Shrira. Ownership types for object encapsulation. In POPL, pages 213-223, 2003.
8. D. Clarke. Object ownership and containment. Dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2001.
9. D. G. Clarke, J. Noble, and J. M. Potter. Simple ownership types for object containment. In ECOOP, 2001.
10. B. Jacobs, J. Kiniry, and M. Warnier. Java program verification challenges. In Formal Methods for Components and Objects, LNCS 2852, pages 202-219, 2003.
11. K. R. M. Leino and P. Müller. Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In ECOOP, 2004. To appear.
12. K. R. M. Leino and G. Nelson. Data abstraction and information hiding. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 24(5):491-553, 2002.
13. A. R. Meyer and K. Sieber. Towards fully abstract semantics for local variables: Preliminary report. In POPL, pages 191-203, 1988.
14. J. C. Mitchell and G. D. Plotkin. Abstract types have existential type. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 10(3):470-502, 1988.
15. G. Morrisett, K. Crary, N. Glew, and D. Walker. From system F to typed assembly language. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 21(3):528-569, 1999.
16. P. Müller. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. Number 2262 in LNCS. Springer, 2002.
17. P. Müller, A. Poetzsch-Heffter, and G. Leavens. Modular invariants for object structures. Technical Report 424, ETH Zürich, Chair of Software Engineering, Oct. 2003.
18. D. A. Naumann. Soundness of data refinement for a higher order imperative language. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 278(1-2):271-301, 2002.
19. P. O'Hearn, H. Yang, and J. Reynolds. Separation and information hiding. In POPL, pages 268-280, 2004.
20. P. W. O'Hearn and R. D. Tennent. Algol-like Languages (Two volumes). Birkhäuser, Boston, 1997.
21. B. Reus. Modular semantics and logics of classes. In CSL, pages 456-469, 2003.
22. J. C. Reynolds. Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS, pages 55-74, 2002.