Citation Context

...ough an example session in Section 2, focuses on the integration of two well-known techniques: static verification based on Hoare-style proofs, currently implemented in Eve through the AutoProof tool =-=[27,20]-=-, and dynamic analysis based on random testing, implemented through AutoTest [19]. Section 4 describes these tools. After a review of the state of the art in Section 3, Sections 5 and 7 illustrate the...

Citation Context

...ec# is another specification language which requires methods called from specifications be pure [10]. Finally, Nordio et al. employ pure methods to model pre- and post-conditions for function objects =-=[24]-=-. There are numerous other works of relevance. In [18], an interprocedural pointer analysis is used to infer side-effect information for use in the Jikes RVM. This enabled upto a 20% improvement in pe...

Citation Context

...edefined routines. 3.1 Polymorphism in Boogie The Boogie translation implemented in AutoProof can handle polymorphism appropriately even for non-pure routines; it is based on a methodology for agents =-=[14]-=- and on a methodology for pure routines [3,10]. The rest of the section discusses how to translate postconditions of redefined routines in a way 51 var max attempts: int; var failed :bool; var transm...

Citation Context

...o the filter is pure, that is it doesn’t modified the heap, then it can be used directly in the specification. However, impure methods cannot be used in specifications. To address this, Nordio et al. =-=[12]-=- add to the assertions the ability to abstractly assert that a delegates’ pre- and post-conditions, (d.pre(x) and d.post(x)) hold for the argument supplied (x). This means they can express the filter ...

Citation Context

...alls to modifies functions. The rest of the presentation considers agents with open target and arguments; the modifications necessary to deal with closed arguments are described in a technical report =-=[18]-=-. In the running example, we can use this function to specify format’s frame as being whatever proc may modify when called on target f and argument Current: format (proc: PROCEDURE [FORMATTER, PARAGRA...

Citation Context

...pendence. Separation logic [11, 3] and implicit dynamic frames [30, 23] are two popular paradigms for controlling modifications to heap regions. Nordio et al. describe an adaptation of dynamic frames =-=[22]-=- for the automated verification of programs with higher-order functions. We note that effect analysis is a separate analysis, whereas separation logic analyses need to perform shape and effect analyse...

Citation Context

...features a standard IDE integrated in your browser; it even offers tools for automated verification. The bottom frame of Figure 1 shows the outcome of a call to the static verification tool AutoProof =-=[14]-=- on the current version of the code; Stu can 5inspect failed verification attempts and accordingly modify the code to correct errors. 4 Unobtrusive Configuration Management and Awareness System This ...

Citation Context

...icz worked on a verification methodology for C# delegates [16]. Later Nordio, Calcagno, Meyer and Müller proposed another verification methodology for function objects that focuses on Eiffel’s agents =-=[23]-=-. Both C# delegates and agents in Eiffel are already quite similar to Scala’s closures. But closures are more general because they may capture local variables in their lexical environment. There even ...

Citation Context

...ramming languages, these solutions cannot be applied to object-oriented languages due the use of the heap and side effects. Agents are therefore diffcult to prove. In Reasoning about Function Objects =-=[3]-=-, a novel approach is described which uses side effect free (pure) routines to specify the pre- and postconditions of agents. To specify routines that take agents as arguments, these pure routines are...