Results 1 
3 of
3
Program verification
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1985
"... Computer programs may be regarded as formal mathematical objects whose properties are subject to mathematical proof. Program verification is the use of formal, mathematical techniques to debug software and software specifications. 1. Code Verification How are the properties of computer programs prov ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Computer programs may be regarded as formal mathematical objects whose properties are subject to mathematical proof. Program verification is the use of formal, mathematical techniques to debug software and software specifications. 1. Code Verification How are the properties of computer programs proved? We discuss three approaches in this article: inductive invariants, functional semantics, and explicit semantics. Because the first approach has received by far the most attention, it has produced the most impressive results to date. However, the field is now moving away from the inductive invariant approach. 1.1. Inductive Assertions The socalled FloydHoare inductive assertion method of program verification [25, 33] has its roots in the classic Goldstine and von Neumann reports [53] and handles the usual kind of programming language, of which FORTRAN is perhaps the best example. In this style of verification, the specifier "annotates " certain points in the program with mathematical assertions that are supposed to describe relations that hold between the program variables and the initial input values each time "control " reaches the annotated point. Among these assertions are some that characterize acceptable input and the desired output. By exploring all possible paths from one assertion to the next and analyzing the effects of intervening program statements it is possible to reduce the correctness of the program to the problem of proving certain derived formulas called verification conditions. Below we illustrate the idea with a simple program for computing the factorial of its integer input N flowchart assertion start with input(N) input N A: = 1 N = 0 yes stop with? answer A
Verifying the Unification Algorithm in LCF
 Science of Computer Programming
, 1985
"... Manna and Waldinger's theory of substitutions and unification has been verified using the Cambridge LCF theorem prover. A proof of the monotonicity of substitution is presented in detail, as an example of interaction with LCF. Translating the theory into LCF's domaintheoretic logic is largely st ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Manna and Waldinger's theory of substitutions and unification has been verified using the Cambridge LCF theorem prover. A proof of the monotonicity of substitution is presented in detail, as an example of interaction with LCF. Translating the theory into LCF's domaintheoretic logic is largely straightforward. Wellfounded induction on a complex ordering is translated into nested structural inductions. Correctness of unification is expressed using predicates for such properties as idempotence and mostgenerality. The verification is presented as a series of lemmas. The LCF proofs are compared with the original ones, and with other approaches. It appears di#cult to find a logic that is both simple and flexible, especially for proving termination.
Towards Machinechecked Compiler Correctness for Higherorder Pure Functional Languages
 CSL '94, European Association for Computer Science Logic, Springer LNCS
, 1994
"... . In this paper we show that the critical part of a correctness proof for implementations of higherorder functional languages is amenable to machineassisted proof. An extended version of the lambdacalculus is considered, and the congruence between its direct and continuation semantics is proved. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. In this paper we show that the critical part of a correctness proof for implementations of higherorder functional languages is amenable to machineassisted proof. An extended version of the lambdacalculus is considered, and the congruence between its direct and continuation semantics is proved. The proof has been constructed with the help of a generic theorem prover  Isabelle. The major part of the problem lies in establishing the existence of predicates which describe the congruence. This has been solved using Milne's inclusive predicate strategy [5]. The most important intermediate results and the main theorem as derived by Isabelle are quoted in the paper. Keywords: Compiler Correctness, Theorem Prover, Congruence Proof, Denotational Semantics, Lambda Calculus 1 Introduction Much of the work done previously in compiler correctness concerns restricted subsets of imperative languages. Some studies involve machinechecked correctnesse.g. Cohn [1], [2]. A lot of research h...