Lifting Verification Results for Preemption Statements

The normal operation of synchronous modules may be temporarily suspended or finally aborted due to requests of their environment. Hence, if a temporal logic specification has already been verified for a synchronous module, then the available verification result can typically only be used if neither suspension nor abortion will take place. Also, the simulation of synchronous modules has to be finally aborted so that temporal logic specifications referring to infinite behaviors cannot be completely answered. In this paper, we therefore define transformations on temporal logic specifications to lift available verification results for synchronous modules without suspension or abortion to refined temporal logic specifications that take care of these preemption statements. This way, one can establish simulation and modular verification of synchronous modules in contexts where preemptions are used.

[1]  Willem P. de Roever,et al.  The Need for Compositional Proof Systems: A Survey , 1997, COMPOS.

[2]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[3]  Stephen A. Edwards,et al.  The synchronous languages 12 years later , 2003, Proc. IEEE.

[4]  Thierry Gautier,et al.  Programming real-time applications with SIGNAL , 1991, Proc. IEEE.

[5]  George Siemens,et al.  Current state and future trends: a citation network analysis of the learning analytics field , 2014, LAK.

[6]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  On the Complexity of Branching Modular Model Checking (Extended Abstract) , 1995, CONCUR.

[7]  Frank S. de Boer,et al.  Compositional Proof Methods for Concurrency: A Semantic Approach , 1997, COMPOS.

[8]  Klaus Schneider,et al.  The Synchronous Programming Language Quartz , 2009 .

[9]  Nicolas Halbwachs,et al.  Synchronous Programming of Reactive Systems , 1992, CAV.

[10]  Gérard Berry,et al.  The Esterel Synchronous Programming Language: Design, Semantics, Implementation , 1992, Sci. Comput. Program..

[11]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  Resets vs. Aborts in Linear Temporal Logic , 2003, TACAS.

[12]  Insup Lee,et al.  CONCUR '95: Concurrency Theory , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  On the Development of Reactive Systems , 1989, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems.

[14]  Ch. Andre,et al.  Synccharts: A visual representation of reactive behaviors , 1995 .

[15]  Klaus Schneider,et al.  Separate compilation for synchronous programs , 2009, SCOPES.

[16]  Klaus Schneider,et al.  Modular Verification of Synchronous Programs , 2013, 2013 13th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[17]  Klaus Schneider,et al.  Verification of Reactive Systems: Formal Methods and Algorithms , 2003 .

[18]  Nicolas Halbwachs,et al.  A synchronous language at work: the story of Lustre , 2005, Proceedings. Second ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, 2005. MEMOCODE '05..

[19]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  Compositionality: The Significant Difference , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Stephen A. Edwards,et al.  The Synchronous Languages Twelve Years Later , 1997 .