Boolean and Cartesian abstraction for model checking C programs

International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 49-58

  Ball, Thomas ^a   Podelski, Andreas ^a   Rajamani, Sriram K ^a  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Abstract interpretation; Model checking; Program analysis; Software engineering; Verification

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS; C PROGRAMS; CARTESIANS; PROGRAM ANALYSIS; RECURSIVE PROCEDURE; SOURCE-TO-SOURCE TRANSFORMATIONS; WORST-CASE COMPLEXITY;

C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); MODEL CHECKING; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; VERIFICATION;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 84896694224     PISSN: 14332779     EISSN: 14332787     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10009-002-0095-0     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S. K. (2001) Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: PLDI 01: programming language design and implementation. ACM, New York.
2. Ball, T., 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, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 113-130.
3. Clarke, E. M., Emerson, E. A. (1981) Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Logic of programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 131. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 52-71.
4. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H. (2000) Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: CAV 00: Computer-aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1885. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 154-169.
5. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., Long, D. (1992) Model checking and abstraction. In: POPL 92: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 343-354.
6. Cleaveland, R., Iyer, P., Yankelevich, D. (1995) Optimality in abstractions of model checking. In: SAS 95: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 983. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 51-63.
7. Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Pasareanu, C., Robby, Laubach, S., 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.
8. Cousot, P., 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.
9. Cousot, P., Cousot, R. (1995) Formal language, grammar and set-constraint-based program analysis by abstract interpretation. In: FPCA 95: Functional programming and computer architecture. ACM, New York, pp. 170-181.
10. Dams, D., Grumberg, O., Gerth, R. (1994) Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: abstractions preserving ACTL*, ECTL*, and CTL*. In: PROCOMET 94: Programming concepts, methods, and calculi. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 561-581.
11. Das, S., Dill, D. L., Park, S. (1999) Experience with predicate abstraction. In: CAV 00: Computer-aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1633. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 160-171.
12. Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F., Scozzari, F. (2000) Making abstract interpretations complete. J ACM 47(2): 361-416.
13. Graf, S., Saïdi, H. (1997) Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: CAV 97: Computer aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1254. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 72-83.
14. Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D. A. (2001) Modal transition systems: a foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: ESOP 01: European symposium on programming. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (to appear).
15. Kurshan, R. (1994) Computer-aided verification of coordinating processes. Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., USA.
16. Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S. (1995) Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods Syst Design 6(1): 11-44.
17. Podelski, A. (2000) Model checking as constraint solving. In: SAS 00: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1824. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 221-237.
18. Reps, T. (1998) Program analysis via graph reachability. Inf Software Technol 40(11-12): 701-726.
19. Reps, T., Horwitz, S., Sagiv, M. (1995) Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability. In: POPL 95: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 49-61.
20. Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R. (1999) Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. In: POPL 99: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 105-118.
21. Saïdi, H. (2000) Model checking guided abstraction and analysis. In: Palsberg, J. (ed) SAS'00: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1824. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 377-396.
22. Schmidt, D. (1998) Data flow analysis is model checking of abstract interpretation. In: POPL 98: Principlesof programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 38-48.
23. Sharir, M., Pnueli, A. (1981) Two approaches to interprocedural data flow analysis. In: Program flow analysis: theory and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., USA, pp. 189-233.
24. Steffen, B. (1991) Data flow analysis as model checking. In: TACS 91: Theoretical aspects of computer science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 536. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 346-365.
25. Yavuz-Kahveci, T., Bultan, T. (2003) A symbolic manipulator for automated verification of reactive systems with heterogeneous data types. Int J Softw Tools Technol Tranfer 5(1): 15, 2003.