DOCSLIB.ORG

Formal Methods in Software Development Computer Programs/Systems Are Subject to Exact Reasoning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Formal Methods in Software Development Computer Programs/Systems Are Subject to Exact Reasoning Core Claim Formal Methods in Software Development Computer programs/systems are subject to exact reasoning. Wolfgang Schreiner Computer programming is an exact science in that all the properties [email protected] of a program and all the consequences of executing it in any given environment can, in principle, be found out from the text of the Research Institute for Symbolic Computation (RISC) program itself by means of purely deductic reasoning. Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria C.A.R. Hoare, “An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming”, http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 1969. A strong claim; not everyone might agree to it (we will rephrase it later). Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 1/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 2/18 Example Demonstration static int sum(int[] a) class Swap { { // swap a[i] and a[j] int n = a.length; static void swap(int[] a, int i, int j) int s = 0; { {n = length(a) ∧ s =0} int t = a[i]; for (int i=0; i<n; i++) a[i] = a[j]; { a[j] = t; − i 1 < } {n = length(a) ∧ s = Pj=0 a[j] ∧ 0 ≤ i n} s = s+a[i]; } // swap the first two elements of a n−1 static void swapFirst(int[] a) {n = length(a) ∧ s = Pj=0 a[j]} return s; { swap(a, 0, 1); } } } We will investigate what can go wrong. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 3/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 4/18 Demonstration (Contd) Aspects This reasoning has various aspects: class Main static void init(int[] a, int n) { { Specification. State the properties that a program shall have. public static void main(String[] args) for (int i=0; i<n; i++) Verification. Argue why a particular program satisfies a given { a[i] = i; int n = parseInt(args[0]); } specification (in every execution). int[] a = new int[n]; Falsification. Detect that a program violates a specification (in some init(a, n); static void print(int[] a, int n) print(a, n); { execution). Swap.swapFirst(a); for (int i=0; i<n; i++) print(a, n); { Transformation. Transform a program that it preserves its behavior } System.out.print(a[i]); (but e.g. improves its execution time). System.out.print(’ ’); static int parseInt(String s) } Derivation. Construct a program in such a way that it is guaranteed { System.out.println(""); to satisfy a given specification. return Integer.parseInt(s); } } } This course deals with specification and verification/falsification. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 5/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 6/18 Properties of Reasoning Alternatives to Reasoning Principal advantage: clarity and generality. Inspection. Let multiple people look at program and discuss it. The subjects of discussion are well defined. Actually, this is reasoning (but without a formal basis). There are clear rules for the correctness of the arguments. Advantages: reduces programmer’s “system blindness”. The arguments may apply to infinitely many situations. Disadvantage: without a formal basis, it is unclear what rules guide Example: {x ≥ 0}x = x+1{x > 0} the discussion. (for all x, to show that x is greater than zero after the execution of Testing. Run the program with sample inputs and observe the the assignment statement, it suffices to show that x is greater than or external effects (see what happens). equal to zero before). Advantage: the program is shown to work in certain situations. Principal disadvantage: abstraction. Disadvantage: you never know what happens with other inputs. We reason about models of the real world. In concurrent programs, you even do not now whether the same Questionable whether the model adequately describes the real world. behavior is always exhibited with the same input. Example: the machine code generated by the compiler for x = x+1 Simulation/Visualization. Similar to testing, but also observe the may be wrong, or the processor may have an error in the internal behavior of the program. implementation of the + operation, or ... Advantage: consideration not limited to external effects. All reasoning is relative to the assumptions of the model. Disadvantages: same as for testing. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 7/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 8/18 The Power and Limits of Reasoning Core Claim Rephrased Assume a correct proof that program P satisfies specification S. True interpretation of Hoare’s statement: We have shown Computer programming is an exact science in that all the properties that every model execution of P satisfies S, of a model program and all the consequences of executing it in any which is also true for all real executions of P if the model is adequate. given model environment can, in principle, be found out from the text We have not shown of the program itself by means of purely deductic reasoning. that any real execution of P satisfies S, Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. Donald E. Knuth, 1977. Still a strong claim, but now everyone should be able to agree to it. that S captures your expectation of a real world behavior. On the other hand, with a successful test run we demonstrate that some real execution of P satisfies an expectation, we cannot show that this is true for all real executions of P. Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence! E.W.Dijkstra, 1972. Reasoning and testing have both their place. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 9/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 10/18 The Role of Reasoning The Role of Reasoning Often: Post Factum Better: Pre Factum So the main role of reasoning is on program/system designs: Design a principal solution to a given problem. Argue about the correctness of the design. Specification Specification Thus find design errors; repeat process until you are satisfied. The main role of testing is on program/system implementations: Reasoning Reasoning Map the design to real computers using real programming languages. Model Model Run the implementation on sample inputs and check its behavior. System System Thus find implementation errors; repeat process until you are satisfied. Modeling Implementing This is a big difference from “proving that a program is correct”. Real Real System System Write a specification, design a model system, reason about its correctness, then implement the design, then test the implementation. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 11/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 12/18 The Role of Reasoning The Origins: Sequential Programs Apparently, there are various approaches/tools that seem to apply A personal selection. reasoning to real systems . Robert W. Floyd, 1967: Assigning Meaning to Programs. Typical goal: prevent runtime errors. C.A.R. Hoare, 1969: An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Division by zero, array index out of bounds, null pointer dereferences, Programming. memory corruptions (buffer overflows). Tool that takes program as input and detects program errors. C.A.R. Hoare, 1972: Proof of Correctness of Data Representations. Actually: operate on automatically constructed models. Edsger W. Dijkstra, 1975: Guarded Commands, Nondeterminacy Focus is on falsification (finding errors). and Formal Derivation of Programs. Investigate whether “bad” states might occur in model. Edsger W. Dijkstra, 1976: A Discipline of Programming. Detected/assumed error in model may imply error in real system. Luckham et al, 1979: Stanford PASCAL Verifier - User Manual. Application to mission-critical/important pieces of software. Airplane control software. David Gries, 1981: The Science of Programming. MS Windows device driver. Axiomatic program semantics, program verification. We alwas reason about models. Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 13/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 14/18 The Origins: Concurrent Programs Later History A personal selection. In the 1980s, program verification was considered “dead” by many. Little automation, much manual effort by programmer. Dijkstra, 1968: Cooperating Sequential Processes. Handling of toy programs only. Ashcorft and Manna, 1971: Formalization of Properties of Parallel In the 1990s, model checkers became successful. Programs. Fully automatically check (finite state) models. Owicki, Gries, 1976: An Axiomatic Proof Technique for Parallel Verification of hardware and of communication protocols. Systems with state spaces of size 10100 and beyond. Programs. Since the late 1990s, interest in software verification revived. C.A.R. Hoare, 1978: Communicating Sequential Processes. Model checking/proving of critical pieces of software. Armin Pnueli, 1979: The Temporal Logic of Programs. Focus often more on falsification than on verification. Leslie Lamport, 1980: The “Hoare Logic” of Concurrent Programs. New applications such as proof-carrying-code (PCC). Robin Milner, 1982: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Ship machine code together with proof that code satisfies certain safety/security properties. Axiomatic semantics, process calculus/algebra, temporal logic. New issues such as security considered. Formal methods are a hot topic today (also in industry). Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 15/18 Wolfgang Schreiner http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at 16/18 Languages and Systems Course Outline Specification Languages Specifying and verifying sequential programs. Hoare style: VDM (Vienna Development Method), SPARK (SPADE Hoare calculus and predicate transformers. Ada Kernel), Larch/C++, OCL (Object Constraint Language for PVS specification and verification system. UML), JML (Java Modeling Language), ... Specifying and verifying Java programs. Algebraic/axiomatic: OBJ, ACT One, CafeOBJ, Larch, CASL, . Java modeling language (JML). State-oriented: Z, ASM (Abstract State Machines), ... Extended static checking of Java programs (ESC/Java2). Concurrent: Unity, Estelle, Lotos, TLA, ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Verification and Formal Methods
    Verification and Formal Methods: Practice and Experience J. C. P. Woodcock University of York, UK and P. G. Larsen Engineering College of Aarhus, Denmark and J. C. Bicarregui STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK and J. S. Fitzgerald Newcastle University, UK We describe the state of the art in the industrial use of formal verification technology. We report on a new survey of the use of formal methods in industry, and compare it with the most significant surveys carried out over the last 20 years. We review the literature on formal methods, and present a series of industrial projects undetaken over the last two decades. We draw some observations from these surveys and records of experience. Based on this, we discuss the issues surrounding the industrial adoption of formal methods. Finally, we look to the future and describe the development of a Verified Software Repository, part of the worldwide Verified Software Initiative. We introduce the initial projects being used to populate the repository, and describe the challenges they address. Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.2.4 [Software/Program Verification]: Assertion check- ers, Class invariants, Correctness proofs, Formal methods, Model checking, Programming by contract; F.3.1 [Specifying and Verifying and Reasoning about Programs]: Assertions, Invariants, Logics of programs, Mechanical verification, Pre- and post-conditions, Specification techniques; F.4.1 [Mathematical Logic]: Mechanical theorem proving; I.2.2 [Automatic Pro- gramming]: Program verification. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Experimental software engineering, formal methods surveys, Grand Challenges, Verified Software Initiative, Verified Software Repository. 1. INTRODUCTION Formal verification, for both hardware and software, has been a topic of great sig- nificance for at least forty years.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Methods
    SE 5302: Formal Methods Course Instructor: Parasara Sridhar Duggirala, Ph.D. Catalog Description. 3 credits. This course is designed to provide students with an introduction to formal methods as a framework for the specification, design, and verification of software-intensive embedded systems. Topics include automata theory, model checking, theorem proving, and system specification. Examples are driven by cyber-physical systems. The course is addressed to students in engineering who have had at least a year of software or embedded systems design experience. Pre- Requisites: SE 5100 or SE 5101 or SE 5102 and at least one year of software or embedded systems design experience. Course Delivery Method. The course will be offered online, asynchronously, in small recorded modules according to the course schedule and syllabus. Direct and live communication with the instructor will be available each week, according to the class schedule, for discussion, questions, examples, and quizzes. Attendance at live sessions is required, and you must notify the instructor in advance if you cannot attend. A social networking tool called Slack will be used to communicate with students and the instructor between live sessions. Course Objective. This course is designed to provide students with an introduction to formal methods as a framework for the specification, design, and verification of software- intensive embedded systems. Topics include automata theory, model checking, theorem proving, and system specification. Examples are driven by control systems and software systems. Anticipated Student Outcomes. By the end of the course, a student will be able to (1) Gain familiarity with current system design flows in industry used for embedded system design, implementation and verification.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Methods for Biological Systems: Languages, Algorithms, and Applications Qinsi Wang CMU-CS-16-129 September 2016
    Formal Methods for Biological Systems: Languages, Algorithms, and Applications Qinsi Wang CMU-CS-16-129 September 2016 School of Computer Science Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Thesis Committee Edmund M. Clarke, Chair Stephen Brookes Marta Zofia Kwiatkowska, University of Oxford Frank Pfenning Natasa Miskov-Zivanov, University of Pittsburgh Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Copyright c 2016 Qinsi Wang This research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers CNS-0926181 and CNS- 1035813, the Army Research Laboratory under grant numbers FA95501210146 and FA955015C0030, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under grant number FA875012C0204, the Office of Naval Research under grant number N000141310090, the Semiconductor Research Corporation under grant number 2008-TJ-1860, and the Mi- croelectronics Advanced Research Corporation (DARPA) under grant number 2009-DT-2049. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as rep- resenting the official policies, either expressed or implied, of any sponsoring institution, the U.S. government or any other entity. Keywords: Model checking, Formal specification, Formal Analysis, Boolean networks, Qual- itative networks, Rule-based modeling, Multiscale hybrid rule-based modeling, Hybrid systems, Stochastic hybrid systems, Symbolic model checking, Bounded model checking, Statistical model checking, Bounded reachability, Probabilistic bounded reachability, Parameter estimation, Sensi- tivity analysis, Statistical tests, Pancreatic cancer, Phage-based bacteria killing, Prostate cancer treatment, C. elegans For My Beloved Mom & Dad iv Abstract As biomedical research advances into more complicated systems, there is an in- creasing need to model and analyze these systems to better understand them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Formal Methods in Medical Software Systems∗
    JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE: EVOLUTION AND PROCESS J. Softw. Evol. and Proc. 2017; 00:1–23 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smr A Systematic Literature Review of the use of Formal Methods in Medical Software Systems∗ Silvia Bonfanti∗, Angelo Gargantini1, Atif Mashkoor2 ∗University of Bergamo, [email protected] 1University of Bergamo, [email protected] 2Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbH, [email protected] SUMMARY The use of formal methods is often recommended to guarantee the provision of necessary services and to assess the correctness of critical properties, such as functional safety, cybersecurity and reliability, in medical and health-care devices. In the past, several formal and rigorous methods have been proposed and consequently applied for trustworthy development of medical software and systems. In this paper, we perform a systematic literature review on the available state of the art in this domain. We collect the relevant literature on the use of formal methods for modeling, design, development, verification and validation of software-intensive medical systems. We apply standard systematic literature review techniques and run several queries in well-known repositories in order to obtain information that can be useful for people who are either already working in this field or planning to start. Our study covers both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the subject. Copyright c 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received . KEY WORDS: Formal Methods, Systematic Literature Review, Medical Device Software 1. INTRODUCTION In modern medical devices, human safety depends upon the correct operation of software controlling the device: software malfunctioning can cause injuries to, or even the death of, patients.
    [Show full text]
  • FORMAL METHODS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES and FUTURE DIRECTION Mona Batra1, Amit Malik2, Dr
    Volume 4, No. 5, May 2013 Journal of Global Research in Computer Science REVIEW ARTICLE Available Online at www.jgrcs.info FORMAL METHODS: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTION Mona Batra1, Amit Malik2, Dr. Meenu Dave3 1 M. Tech. Scholar Department of Computer Science, Jagan Nath University, Jaipur, India [email protected] 2Sr. Analyst, HCL Technologies Ltd. , Noida-201304, India [email protected] 3Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science, Jagan Nath University, Jaipur, India [email protected] Abstract: There is an increasing demand of current information systems to incorporate the use of a higher degree of formalism in the development process. Formal Methods consist of a set of tools and techniques based on mathematical model and formal logic that are used to specify and verify requirements and designs for hardware and software systems. This paper presents a detailed analysis of formal methods along with their goals and benefits followed by limitations. This research work is aimed to help the software engineers to identify the use of formal methods at different stages of software development, with special reference to the requirements phase. Keywords- Formal Methods, Requirements Engineering, Formal Specification, Feasibility Analysis etc. of mathematics in design and construction to ensure product INTRODUCTION quality is common practice in established engineering disciplines, such as bridge or aircraft building, and even In today’s commercial environment, the primary measure of computer (hardware) construction, where one applies success of software projects is the extent to which a mathematically expressed physical and other natural laws to software system fulfills the purpose, which it is intended for.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Formal Methods Improve Code Quality?
    Do Formal Methods Improve Code Quality? Shari Lawrence Pfleeger Les Hatton Centre for Software Reliability Programming Research Ltd. Northampton Square Glenbrook House, 1/11 Molesey Road London EC1V 0HB Hersham, Surrey KT12 4RH England England phone: +44 171 477-8426 +44 932 888080 fax: +44 171 477-8585 +44 932 888081 email: [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Formal methods are advocated on many projects, in the hope that their use will improve the quality of the resulting software. However, to date there has been little quantitative evidence of their effectiveness, especially for safety-critical applications. We examined the code and development records for a large air traffic control support system to see if the use of formal methods made a measurable difference. In this paper, we show that formal specification, in concert with thorough unit testing and careful reviews, can lead to high-quality code. But we also show that improved measurement and record-keeping could have made analysis easier and the results more clear-cut. As practitioners and researchers, we continue to look for methods and tools that help us to improve our software development processes and products. Articles in IEEE Software and elsewhere focus on candidate technologies that promise increased productivity, better quality, lower cost or enhanced customer satisfaction. But we are reminded that these methods and tools should be tested empirically and rigorously to determine if they make a quantifiable difference to software we produce.1,2 Often, such evaluation is not considered until after the technology has been used, making careful, quantitative analysis difficult if not impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • A Debate on Teaching Computing Science
    Teaching Computing Science t the ACM Computer Science Conference last Strategic Defense Initiative. William Scherlis is February, Edsger Dijkstra gave an invited talk known for his articulate advocacy of formal methods called “On the Cruelty of Really Teaching in computer science. M. H. van Emden is known for Computing Science.” He challenged some of his contributions in programming languages and the basic assumptions on which our curricula philosophical insights into science. Jacques Cohen Aare based and provoked a lot of discussion. The edi- is known for his work with programming languages tors of Comwunications received several recommenda- and logic programming and is a member of the Edi- tions to publish his talk in these pages. His comments torial Panel of this magazine. Richard Hamming brought into the foreground some of the background received the Turing Award in 1968 and is well known of controversy that surrounds the issue of what be- for his work in communications and coding theory. longs in the core of a computer science curriculum. Richard M. Karp received the Turing Award in 1985 To give full airing to the controversy, we invited and is known for his contributions in the design of Dijkstra to engage in a debate with selected col- algorithms. Terry Winograd is well known for his leagues, each of whom would contribute a short early work in artificial intelligence and recent work critique of his position, with Dijkstra himself making in the principles of design. a closing statement. He graciously accepted this offer. I am grateful to these people for participating in We invited people from a variety of specialties, this debate and to Professor Dijkstra for creating the backgrounds, and interpretations to provide their opening.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Ten Ways to Make Formal Methods for HPC Practical
    Top Ten Ways to Make Formal Methods for HPC Practical Ganesh Gopalakrishnan and Robert M. Kirby School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 http://www.cs.utah.edu/fv { fganesh,[email protected] ABSTRACT such as deadlocks and resource leaks. Barring a few ex- Almost all fundamental advances in science and engineer- ceptions [2], debugging challenges associated with MPI pro- ing crucially depend on the availability of extremely capable gramming have not been very much discussed in the formal high performance computing (HPC) systems. Future HPC verification literature. The primary debugging approach for systems will increasingly be based on heterogeneous multi- MPI is still one of running an MPI application on a specific core CPUs, and their programming will involve multiple con- platform, feeding it a collection of test inputs, and seeing currency models. These developments can make concurrent if anything goes wrong. This approach may seem to work programming and optimization of HPC platforms and ap- | largely due to the uniformity of the platform hardware, plications very error-prone. Therefore, significant advances libraries, and programming styles employed in this area. By must occur in verification methods for HPC. We present ten avoiding aggressive styles of MPI programming and staying important formal methods research thrusts that can accel- within safe practices, today's HPC application developers erate these advances. can often compensate for the lack of rigorous testing and reasoning approaches. At present, HPC application developers and the Com- 1. FORMAL METHODS AND HPC puter Science research community are relatively unaware of High performance computing (HPC) is one of the pillars what is going on each others' research areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Methods in Macro- Biology First International Conference, FMMB 2014, Noumea, New Caledonia, September 22-14, 2014, Proceedings
    springer.com Computer Science : Computational Biology / Bioinformatics Fages, François, Piazza, Carla (Eds.) Formal Methods in Macro- Biology First International Conference, FMMB 2014, Noumea, New Caledonia, September 22-14, 2014, Proceedings This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal Methods in Macro-Biology, FMMB 2014, held in Nouméa, New Caledonia, in September 2014. The 7 revised full and 3 short papers presented together with 7 invited presentations were carefully reviewed and selected from 17 submissions. The scientific program consists of papers on a wide variety of topics, including ecological systems, medical applications, logical frameworks, and discrete continuous and hybrid models for the analysis of biological systems at macroscopic levels. Springer Order online at springer.com/booksellers 2014, XXVI, 183 p. 46 illus. Springer Nature Customer Service Center LLC 1st 233 Spring Street edition New York, NY 10013 USA T: +1-800-SPRINGER NATURE Printed book (777-4643) or 212-460-1500 Softcover [email protected] Printed book Softcover ISBN 978-3-319-10397-6 $ 59,99 Available Discount group Professional Books (2) Product category Proceedings Series Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics Other renditions Softcover ISBN 978-3-319-10399-0 Prices and other details are subject to change without notice. All errors and omissions excepted. Americas: Tax will be added where applicable. Canadian residents please add PST, QST or GST. Please add $5.00 for shipping one book and $ 1.00 for each additional book. Outside the US and Canada add $ 10.00 for first book, $5.00 for each additional book. If an order cannot be fulfilled within 90 days, payment will be refunded upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • The State-Of-The-Art in Formal Methods
    The State-of-the-Art in Formal Methods by Milica Barjaktarovic Wilkes University Wilkes Barre PA 18766 and WetStone Technologies, Inc. 273 Ringwood Rd. Freeville, NY 13068 January 1998 For Michael Nassiff Rome Research Site AFRL/IFGB 525 Brooks Rd. Rome, NY 13441-4505 Report: State of the Art in Formal Methods M. Barjaktarovic / WetStone Technologies Abstract This report is predominantly based on observations and informal interviews during participation in the following events: · Workshop on Integrating Formal Techniques (WIFT 98). Bocca Raton, FL, October 1998. · Visit to SRI International. Palo Alto, CA, October 1998. · Formal Methods Standardization Working Group Meeting. Palo Alto, CA, October 1998. · Formal Methods PI Meeting with Hellen Gill. Palo Alto, CA, October 1998. · Formal Methods in CAD (FMCAD 98). Palo Alto, CA, November 1998. The overall impression from the trip is that industry needs assistance in dealing with the present realities of complex products and short time-to-market deadlines, and needs to consider formal methods as a systematic approach to dealing with the overwhelming amount of information. CAD industry seems the most willing and already uses many lightweight formal tools, such as model checkers and equivalence checkers. Telecommunications industry comes next. We have not encountered presentations in computer security and electronic commerce, but we could assume that their situation is very similar. The major task of the formal methods community will be to provide the assistance sought. Expressed needs include: more user-friendly tools; more powerful and robust tools; more real-life applications; more infrastructure such as verified libraries; more publicity of success stories and available technologies; and more user training.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Tools for Formal Software Engineering
    Methods and Tools for Formal Software Engineering Zhiming Liu1, and R. Venkatesh2 1 International Institute for Software Technology United Nations University, Macao SAR, China [email protected] 2 Tata Research and Design Development Centre, Pune, India [email protected] Abstract. We propose a collaboration project to integrate the research effort and results obtained at UNU-IIST on formal techniques in component and object sys- tems with research at TRDDC in modelling and development of tools that support object-oriented and component-based design. The main theme is an integration of verification techniques with engineering methods of modelling and design, and an integration of verification tools and transformation tools. This will result in a method in which a correct program can be developed through transformations that are either proven to be correct or by showing that the transformed model can be proven correct by a verification tool. 1 Formal Software Engineering and the Grand Challenge The goal of the Verifying Compiler Grand Challenge [7,6] is to build a verifying com- piler that “uses mathematical and logical reasoning to check the programs that it compiles.” This implies that “a program should be allowed to run only if it is both syntactically and semantically correct” [20]. To achieve this goal, the whole computing community have to deal with a wide range of issues, among which are [2] 1. arriving at automated procedures of abstraction that enables a compiler to work in combination with different program verification tools including testing tools, 2. studying what, where, when and how the correctness properties, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Assembling a Prehistory for Formal Methods: a Personal View Thomas Haigh [email protected]
    Assembling A Prehistory for Formal Methods: A Personal View Thomas Haigh [email protected] University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee & Siegen University www.tomandmaria.com This is a preprint copy. Please quote and cite the final version, which will appear in a special issue of Formal Aspects of Computing devoted to historical work. Thanks to Cliff Jones and the anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Preprint Draft Haigh – Assembling a History for Formal Methods 2 Although I was pleased to be asked to contribute something to this volume I have a confession to make: I have never studied the history of formal methods. So this is not going to be a history of formal methods as much as a reflection on how such a story might be written. My plan is to triangulate from my personal experiences as a computer science student a quarter century ago, my Ph.D. training as a historian of science and technology, and my subsequent career researching and writing about various aspects of the history of computing. The fact that, despite a general familiarity with the literature on the history of computing, I don’t have a better grasp of the history of formal methods tells us a lot about the need for this special issue. Most of the history is so far locked up in the heads of participants, which is not a convenient place for the rest of us to find it. Stories written by participants or people with a personal connection to the events described are not usually the last word on historical events, but they are a vital starting point.
    [Show full text]