DMCA
Software Tools for Technology Transfer manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) AutoProof Meets Some Verification Challenges
BibTeX
@MISC{Tschannen_softwaretools,
author = {Julian Tschannen and Carlo A. Furia and Martin Nordio},
title = {Software Tools for Technology Transfer manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) AutoProof Meets Some Verification Challenges},
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
Abstract AutoProof is an automatic verifier for func-tional properties of programs written in Eiffel. This pa-per illustrates some of AutoProof’s capabilities when tackling the three challenges of the VerifyThis veri-fication competition held at FM 2012, as well as on three other problems proposed in related events. Auto-Proof’s design focuses on making it practically appli-cable with reduced user effort. Tackling the challenges demonstrates to what extent this design goal is met in the current implementation: while some of AutoProof’s current limitations prevent us from verifying the com-plete specification of the prefix sum and binary search tree algorithms, we can still prove some partial proper-ties on interesting special cases, but with the advantage of requiring little or no specification. 1 Verification Benchmarks Can Shape the Field For better or worse, benchmarks shape a field [16]. Pat-terson’s compelling analysis of the coming of age of computer architecture seems to fit the progress of for-mal software verification too – possibly with a couple-of-decade time shift. As verification techniques left the realm of pure theory and became implementable and usable, they often reported incomparable results: dif-ferent tools that work on different languages and solve different problems (such as extended static checking, functional correctness, shape analysis, and so on). Verification competitions and challenges [9,4,5,7] can help in this regard: by providing benchmarks for
Keyphrases
verification challenge autoproof meet software tool technology transfer verification technique computer architecture abstract autoproof automatic verifier verification benchmark shape shape analysis current implementation func-tional property special case auto-proof design related event prefix sum pure theory verifythis veri-fication competition com-plete specification functional correctness different language binary search tree algorithm current limitation design goal extended static checking partial proper-ties autoproof capability different problem reduced user effort dif-ferent tool couple-of-decade time shift for-mal software verification incomparable result verification competition
