Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Boolean and Cartesian abstraction for model checking C programs

  • Special section on trends in verification and validation
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show how to attack the problem of model checking a C program with recursive procedures using an abstraction that we formally define as the composition of the Boolean and the Cartesian abstractions. It is implemented through a source-to-source transformation into a ‘Boolean’ C program; we give an algorithm to compute the transformation with a cost that is exponential in its theoretical worst-case complexity but feasible in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K. (2001) Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: PLDI 01: programming language design and implementation. ACM, New York

  2. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (2000) Bebop: a symbolic model checker for Boolean programs. In: SPIN 00: SPIN Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1885. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 113–130

  3. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A. (1981) Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Logic of programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 131. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 52–71

  4. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H. (2000) Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: CAV 00: Computer-aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1885. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York,pp. 154–169

  5. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D. (1992) Model checking and abstraction. In: POPL 92: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 343–354

  6. Cleaveland, R., Iyer, P., Yankelevich, D. (1995) Optimality in abstractions of model checking. In: SAS 95: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 983. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 51–63

  7. Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Pasareanu, C., Robby, Laubach, S., Zheng, H. (2000) Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: ICSE 2000: International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York,pp. 439–448

  8. Cousot, P., Cousot, R. (1977) Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for the static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL 77: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 238–252

  9. Cousot, P., Cousot, R. (1995) Formal language, grammar and set-constraint-based program analysis by abstract interpretation. In: FPCA 95: Functional programming and computer architecture. ACM, New York, pp. 170–181

  10. Dams, D., Grumberg, O., Gerth, R. (1994) Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: abstractions preserving ACTL*, ECTL*, and CTL*. In: PROCOMET 94: Programming concepts, methods, and calculi. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 561–581

  11. Das, S., Dill, D.L., Park, S. (1999) Experience with predicate abstraction. In: CAV 00: Computer-aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1633. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 160–171

  12. Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F., Scozzari, F. (2000) Making abstract interpretations complete. J ACM 47(2): 361–416

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Graf, S., Saïdi, H. (1997) Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: CAV 97: Computer aided verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1254. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 72–83

  14. Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D.A. (2001) Modal transition systems: a foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: ESOP 01: European symposium on programming. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (to appear)

  15. Kurshan, R. (1994) Computer-aided verification of coordinating processes. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., USA

  16. Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S. (1995) Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods Syst Design 6(1): 11–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Podelski, A. (2000) Model checking as constraint solving. In: SAS 00: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1824. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 221–237

  18. Reps, T. (1998) Program analysis via graph reachability. Inf Software Technol 40(11-12): 701–726

  19. Reps, T., Horwitz, S., Sagiv, M. (1995) Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability. In: POPL 95: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York,pp. 49–61

  20. Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R. (1999) Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. In: POPL 99: Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp. 105–118

  21. Saïdi, H. (2000) Model checking guided abstraction and analysis. In: Palsberg, J. (ed) SAS’00: Static analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1824. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 377–396

  22. Schmidt, D. (1998) Data flow analysis is model checking of abstract interpretation. In: POPL 98: Principlesof programming languages. ACM, New York, pp.38–48

  23. Sharir, M., Pnueli, A. (1981) Two approaches to interprocedural data flow analysis. In: Program flow analysis: theory and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA,pp. 189–233

  24. Steffen, B. (1991) Data flow analysis as model checking. In: TACS 91: Theoretical aspects of computer science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 536. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 346–365

  25. Yavuz-Kahveci, T., Bultan, T. (2003) A symbolic manipulator for automated verification of reactive systems with heterogeneous data types. Int J Softw Tools Technol Tranfer 5(1): 15, 2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Productivity Tools, Microsoft Research, WA 98052, Redmond, USA

    Thomas Ball, Andreas Podelski & Sriram K. Rajamani

Authors
  1. Thomas Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Podelski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sriram K. Rajamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ball, T., Podelski, A. & Rajamani, S. Boolean and Cartesian abstraction for model checking C programs. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 5, 49–58 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-002-0095-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-002-0095-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation