Paper detail

Reducing the Number of Annotations in a Verification-oriented Imperative Language

Automated software verification is a very active field of research which has made enormous progress both in theoretical and practical aspects. Recently, an important amount of research effort has been put into applying these techniques on top of mainstream programming languages. These languages typically provide powerful features such as reflection, aliasing and polymorphism which are handy for practitioners but, in contrast, make verification a real challenge. In this work we present Pest, a simple experimental, while-style, multiprocedural, imperative programming language which was conceived with verifiability as one of its main goals. This language forces developers to concurrently think about both the statements needed to implement an algorithm and the assertions required to prove its correctness. In order to aid programmers, we propose several techniques to reduce the number and complexity of annotations required to successfully verify their programs. In particular, we show that high-level iteration constructs may alleviate the need for providing complex loop annotations.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.