×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Combining model checking and testing. (English) Zbl 1392.68250
Clarke, Edmund M. (ed.) et al., Handbook of model checking. Cham: Springer (ISBN 978-3-319-10574-1/hbk; 978-3-319-10575-8/ebook). 613-649 (2018).
Summary: Model checking and testing have a lot in common. Over the last two decades, significant progress has been made on how to broaden the scope of model checking from finite-state abstractions to actual software implementations. One way to do this consists of adapting model checking into a form of systematic testing that is applicable to industrial-size software. This chapter presents an overview of this strand of software model checking.
For the entire collection see [Zbl 1390.68001].

MSC:
68Q60 Specification and verification (program logics, model checking, etc.)
68N30 Mathematical aspects of software engineering (specification, verification, metrics, requirements, etc.)
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] 1. Anand, S., Godefroid, P., Tillmann, N.: Demand-driven compositional symbolic execution. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 367-381. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) · Zbl 1134.68355
[2] 2. Anand, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Visser, W.: JPF-SE: a symbolic execution extension to Java PathFinder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 134-138. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
[3] 3. Artzi, S., Kiezun, A., Dolby, J., Tip, F., Dig, D., Paradkar, A.M., Ernst, M.D.: Finding bugs in web applications using dynamic test generation and explicit-state model checking. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(4), 474-494 (2010)
[4] 4. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM toolkit. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 260-264. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) · Zbl 0996.68560
[5] 5. Barnett, M., Chang, B.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.P. (eds.) Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO). LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364-387. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
[6] 6. Beckman, N.E., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K., Simmons, R.J.: Proofs from tests. In: Ryder, B.G., Zeller, A. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 3-14. ACM, New York (2008)
[7] 7. Bensalem, S., Peled, D., Qu, H., Tripakis, S.: Generating path conditions for timed systems. In: Romijn, J., Smith, G., van de Pol, J. (eds.) Integrated Formal Methods (IFM). LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 5-19. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) · Zbl 1137.68351
[8] 8. Bensalem, S., Peled, D., Qu, H., Tripakis, S., Zuck, L.D.: Test case generation for ultimately periodic paths. In: Yorav, K. (ed.) Intl. Haifa Verification Conf. (HVC). LNCS, vol. 4899, pp. 120-135. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
[9] 9. Beyer, D., Chlipala, A., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Generating tests from counterexamples. In: Finkelstein, A., Estublier, J., Rosenblum, D.S. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 326-335. IEEE, Piscataway (2004)
[10] 10. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. In: Tracz, W., Robillard, M.P., Bultan, T. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), p. 57. ACM, New York (2012)
[11] 11. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Théoduloz, G.: Program analysis with dynamic precision adjustment. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 29-38. IEEE, Piscataway (2008)
[12] 12. Beyer, D., Holzer, A., Tautschnig, M., Veith, H.: Information reuse for multi-goal reachability analyses. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) European Symp. on Programming (ESOP). LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 472-491. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) · Zbl 1381.68148
[13] 13. van der Bijl, M., Rensink, A., Tretmans, J.: Compositional testing with ioco. In: Intl. Workshop on Formal Approaches to Testing of Software (FATES). LNCS, vol. 2931, pp. 86-100. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) · Zbl 1185.68234
[14] 14. Boonstoppel, P., Cadar, C., Engler, D.R.: Rwset: attacking path explosion in constraint-based test generation. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 351-366. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
[15] 15. Bounimova, E., Godefroid, P., Molnar, D.A.: Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production. In: Notkin, D., Cheng, B.H.C., Pohl, K. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 122-131. IEEE/ACM, Piscataway/New York (2013)
[16] 16. Boyer, R.S., Elspas, B., Levitt, K.N.: SELECT—a formal system for testing and debugging programs by symbolic execution. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 10(6), 234-245 (1975)
[17] 17. Brat, G.P., Drusinsky, D., Giannakopoulou, D., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Lowry, M.R., Păsăreanu, C.S., Venet, A., Visser, W., Washington, R.: Experimental evaluation of verification and validation tools on Martian Rover software. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 25(2-3), 167-198 (2004) · Zbl 1078.68665
[18] 18. Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: · Zbl 0753.68066
[19] 19. Burckhardt, S., Kothari, P., Musuvathi, M., Nagarakatte, S.: A randomized scheduler with probabilistic guarantees of finding bugs. In: Hoe, J.C., Adve, V.S. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pp. 167-178. ACM, New York (2010)
[20] 20. Burnim, J., Jalbert, N., Stergiou, C., Sen, K.: Looper: lightweight detection of infinite loops at runtime. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 161-169. IEEE, Piscataway (2009)
[21] 21. Burnim, J., Juvekar, S., Sen, K.: WISE: automated test generation for worst-case complexity. In: Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 463-473. IEEE, Piscataway (2009)
[22] 22. Burnim, J., Necula, G., Sen, K.: Separating functional and parallel correctness using nondeterministic sequential specifications. In: USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Parallelism (HotPar). USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)
[23] 23. Burnim, J., Necula, G.C., Sen, K.: Specifying and checking semantic atomicity for multithreaded programs. In: Gupta, R., Mowry, T.C. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pp. 79-90. ACM, New York (2011)
[24] 24. Burnim, J., Sen, K.: Heuristics for scalable dynamic test generation. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 443-446. IEEE, Piscataway (2008)
[25] 25. Burnim, J., Sen, K.: Asserting and checking determinism for multithreaded programs. Commun. ACM 53(6), 97-105 (2010)
[26] 26. Burnim, J., Sen, K., Stergiou, C.: Sound and complete monitoring of sequential consistency for relaxed memory models. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 11-25. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) · Zbl 1315.68084
[27] 27. Burnim, J., Sen, K., Stergiou, C.: Testing concurrent programs on relaxed memory models. In: Dwyer, M.B., Tip, F. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 122-132. ACM, New York (2011) · Zbl 1315.68084
[28] 28. Cadar, C., Dunbar, D., Engler, D.R.: KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In: Draves, R., van Renesse, R. (eds.) Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 209-224. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)
[29] 29. Cadar, C., Engler, D.R.: Execution generated test cases: how to make systems code crash itself. In: Godefroid, P. (ed.) Intl. Symp. on Model Checking of Software (SPIN). LNCS, vol. 3639, pp. 2-23. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
[30] 30. Cadar, C., Ganesh, V., Pawlowski, P.M., Dill, D.L., Engler, D.R.: EXE: automatically generating inputs of death. In: Juels, A., Wright, R.N., di Vimercati, S.D.C. (eds.) ACM Conf. on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pp. 322-335. ACM, New York (2006)
[31] 31. Cadar, C., Godefroid, P., Khurshid, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Sen, K., Tillmann, N., Visser, W.: Symbolic execution for software testing in practice: preliminary assessment. In: Taylor, R.N., Gall, H.C., Medvidovic, N. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1066-1071. ACM, New York (2011)
[32] 32. Cadar, C., Sen, K.: Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later. Commun. ACM 56(2), 82-90 (2013)
[33] 33. Chandra, S., Fink, S.J., Sridharan, M.: Snugglebug: a powerful approach to weakest preconditions. In: Hind, M., Diwan, A. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 363-374. ACM, New York (2009)
[34] 34. Chandra, S., Godefroid, P., Palm, C.: Software model checking in practice: an industrial case study. In: Tracz, W., Young, M., Magee, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 431-441. ACM, New York (2002)
[35] 35. Chang, J., Richardson, D.J., Sankar, S.: Structural specification-based testing with ADL. In: Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 62-70. ACM, New York (1996)
[36] 36. Chipounov, V., Kuznetsov, V., Candea, G.: S2E: a platform for in-vivo multi-path analysis of software systems. In: Gupta, R., Mowry, T.C. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pp. 265-278. ACM, New York (2011)
[37] 37. Clarke, E.M., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7-34 (2001) · Zbl 0985.68038
[38] 38. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Workshop on Logics of Programs. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52-71. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)
[39] 39. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244-263 (1986) · Zbl 0591.68027
[40] 40. Clarke, E.M., Kroening, D., Yorav, K.: Behavioral consistency of C and Verilog programs using bounded model checking. In: Design Automation Conf. (DAC), pp. 368-371. ACM, New York (2003)
[41] 41. Clarke, L.A.: A program testing system. In: ACM, vol. 176, pp. 488-491 (1976)
[42] 42. Clarke, L.A., Richardson, D.J.: Applications of symbolic evaluation. J. Syst. Softw. 5(1), 15-35 (1985)
[43] 43. Colby, C.: Analyzing the communication topology of concurrent programs. In: Jones, N.D. (ed.) Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pp. 202-213. ACM, New York (1995)
[44] 44. Corbett, J.C.: Constructing abstract models of concurrent real-time software. In: Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 250-260 (1996)
[45] 45. Corbett, J.C., Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Laubach, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Robby, Zheng, H.: Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java source code. In: Ghezzi, C., Jazayeri, M., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 439-448. ACM, New York (2000)
[46] 46. Cridlig, R.: Semantic analysis of shared-memory concurrent languages using abstract model-checking. In: Jones, N.D. (ed.) Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pp. 214-225. ACM, New York (1995)
[47] 47. Csallner, C., Smaragdakis, Y.: Check’n’crash: combining static checking and testing. In: Roman, G., Griswold, W.G., Nuseibeh, B. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 422-431. ACM, New York (2005)
[48] 48. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453-457 (1975) · Zbl 0308.68017
[49] 49. Dillon, L.K., Yu, Q.: Oracles for checking temporal properties of concurrent systems. In: Wile, D.S. (ed.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 140-153. ACM, New York (1994)
[50] 50. Drusinsky, D.: The temporal rover and the ATG rover. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Model Checking of Software (SPIN). LNCS, vol. 1885, pp. 323-330. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) · Zbl 0976.68571
[51] 51. Edelstein, O., Farchi, E., Goldin, E., Nir, Y., Ratsaby, G., Ur, S.: Framework for testing multi-threaded Java programs. Concurr. Comput. 15(3-5), 485-499 (2003) · Zbl 1009.68542
[52] 52. Elkarablieh, B., Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y.: Precise pointer reasoning for dynamic test generation. In: Rothermel, G., Dillon, L.K. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 129-140. ACM, New York (2009)
[53] 53. Emmi, M., Majumdar, R., Sen, K.: Dynamic test input generation for database applications. In: Rosenblum, D.S., Elbaum, S.G. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 151-162. ACM, New York (2007)
[54] 54. Ernst, M.D.: Static and dynamic analysis: synergy and duality. In: ICSE Workshop on Dynamic Analysis (WODA), pp. 25-28. ACM, New York (2003)
[55] 55. Farzan, A., Holzer, A., Razavi, N., Veith, H.: Con2colic testing. In: Meyer, B., Baresi, L., Mezini, M. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 37-47. ACM, New York (2013)
[56] 56. Fernandez, J., Jard, C., Jéron, T., Viho, C.: Using on-the-fly verification techniques for the generation of test suites. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 348-359. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
[57] 57. Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: Palsberg, J., Abadi, M. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 110-121. ACM, New York (2005) · Zbl 1369.68135
[58] 58. Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, vol. 19, pp. 19-32 (1967) · Zbl 0189.50204
[59] 59. Godefroid, P.: Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems—An Approach to the State-Explosion Problem. LNCS, vol. 1032. Springer, Heidelberg (1996) · Zbl 1293.68005
[60] 60. Godefroid, P.: Model checking for programming languages using VeriSoft. In: Lee, P., Henglein, F., Jones, N.D. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 174-186. ACM, New York (1997)
[61] 61. Godefroid, P.: Software model checking: the VeriSoft approach. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 26(2), 77-101 (2005)
[62] 62. Godefroid, P.: Compositional dynamic test generation. In: Hofmann, M., Felleisen, M. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 47-54. ACM, New York (2007)
[63] 63. Godefroid, P.: Higher-order test generation. In: Hall, M.W., Padua, D.A. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 258-269. ACM, New York (2011)
[64] 64. Godefroid, P., Hanmer, R.S., Jagadeesan, L.J.: Model checking without a model: an analysis of the heart-beat monitor of a telephone switch using VeriSoft. In: Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 124-133 (1998)
[65] 65. Godefroid, P., Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R.: Abstraction-based model checking using modal transition systems. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR). LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 426-440. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) · Zbl 1006.68077
[66] 66. Godefroid, P., Kiezun, A., Levin, M.Y.: Grammar-based whitebox fuzzing. In: Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 206-215. ACM, New York (2008)
[67] 67. Godefroid, P., Kinder, J.: Proving memory safety of floating-point computations by combining static and dynamic program analysis. In: Tonella, P., Orso, A. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 1-12. ACM, New York (2010)
[68] 68. Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: DART: Directed Automated Random Testing. In: Sarkar, V., Hall, M.W. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 213-223. ACM, New York (2005)
[69] 69. Godefroid, P., Lahiri, S.K.: From program to logic: an introduction. In: Meyer, B., Nordio, M. (eds.) Tools for Practical Software Verification (LASER). LNCS, vol. 7682, pp. 31-44. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
[70] 70. Godefroid, P., Lahiri, S.K., Rubio-González, C.: Statically validating must summaries for incremental compositional dynamic test generation. In: Yahav, E. (ed.) Intl. Symp. on Static Analysis (SAS). LNCS, vol. 6887, pp. 112-128. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
[71] 71. Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y., Molnar, D.A.: Active property checking. In: de Alfaro, L., Palsberg, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), pp. 207-216. ACM, New York (2008)
[72] 72. Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y., Molnar, D.A.: Automated whitebox fuzz testing. In: Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). The Internet Society, Reston (2008)
[73] 73. Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y., Molnar, D.A.: SAGE: whitebox fuzzing for security testing. Commun. ACM 55(3), 40-44 (2012)
[74] 74. Godefroid, P., Luchaup, D.: Automatic partial loop summarization in dynamic test generation. In: Dwyer, M.B., Tip, F. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 23-33. ACM, New York (2011)
[75] 75. Godefroid, P., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K., Tetali, S.: Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Palsberg, J. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 43-56. ACM, New York (2010) · Zbl 1312.68057
[76] 76. Godefroid, P., Taly, A.: Automated synthesis of symbolic instruction encodings from I/O samples. In: Vitek, J., Lin, H., Tip, F. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 441-452. ACM, New York (2012)
[77] 77. Gulavani, B.S., Henzinger, T.A., Kannan, Y., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: SYNERGY: a new algorithm for property checking. In: Young, M., Devanbu, P.T. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 117-127. ACM, New York (2006)
[78] 78. Gunter, E.L., Peled, D.: Path exploration tool. In: Cleaveland, R. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 405-419. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
[79] 79. Gunter, E.L., Peled, D.: Model checking, testing and verification working together. Form. Asp. Comput. 17(2), 201-221 (2005) · Zbl 1101.68681
[80] 80. Gupta, N., Mathur, A.P., Soffa, M.L.: Generating test data for branch coverage. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 219-228. IEEE, Piscataway (2000)
[81] 81. Havelund, K., Rosu, G.: Monitoring Java programs with Java PathExplorer. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 55(2), 200-217 (2001)
[82] 82. Helmstetter, C., Maraninchi, F., Maillet-Contoz, L., Moy, M.: Automatic generation of schedulings for improving the test coverage of systems-on-a-chip. In: Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 171-178. IEEE, Piscataway (2006)
[83] 83. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576-580 (1969) · Zbl 0179.23105
[84] 84. Hoenicke, J., Leino, K.R.M., Podelski, A., Schäf, M., Wies, T.: It’s doomed; we can prove it. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D. (eds.) World Congress on Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 338-353. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
[85] 85. Holzmann, G.J., Smith, M.H.: A practical method for verifying event-driven software. In: Boehm, B.W., Garlan, D., Kramer, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 597-607. ACM, New York (1999)
[86] 86. Howden, W.E.: Symbolic testing and the DISSECT symbolic evaluation system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 3(4), 266-278 (1977) · Zbl 0359.68015
[87] 87. Jagadeesan, L.J., Porter, A.A., Puchol, C., Ramming, J.C., Votta, L.G.: Specification-based testing of reactive software: tools and experiments (experience report). In: Adrion, W.R., Fuggetta, A., Taylor, R.N., Wasserman, A.I. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 525-535. ACM, New York (1997)
[88] 88. Jalbert, N., Sen, K.: A trace simplification technique for effective debugging of concurrent programs. In: Roman, G., Sullivan, K.J. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 57-66. ACM, New York (2010)
[89] 89. Joshi, P., Naik, M., Park, C., Sen, K.: CalFuzzer: an extensible active testing framework for concurrent programs. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV), pp. 675-681 (2009)
[90] 90. Joshi, P., Naik, M., Sen, K., Gay, D.: An effective dynamic analysis for detecting generalized deadlocks. In: Roman, G., Sullivan, K.J. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 327-336. ACM, New York (2010)
[91] 91. Joshi, P., Park, C., Sen, K., Naik, M.: A randomized dynamic program analysis technique for detecting real deadlocks. In: Hind, M., Diwan, A. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 110-120. ACM, New York (2009)
[92] 92. Joshi, P., Sen, K., Shlimovich, M.: Predictive testing: amplifying the effectiveness of software testing. In: Crnkovic, I., Bertolino, A. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 561-564 (2007)
[93] 93. Kannan, Y., Sen, K.: Universal symbolic execution and its application to likely data structure invariant generation. In: Ryder, B.G., Zeller, A. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 283-294. ACM, New York (2008)
[94] 94. Khurshid, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Visser, W.: Generalized symbolic execution for model checking and testing. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 553-568. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) · Zbl 1031.68519
[95] 95. Killian, C.E., Anderson, J.W., Jhala, R., Vahdat, A.: Life, death, and the critical transition: finding liveness bugs in systems code. In: Balakrishnan, H., Druschel, P. (eds.) USENIX Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX Association, Berkeley (2007)
[96] 96. King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385-394 (1976) · Zbl 0329.68018
[97] 97. Korel, B.: A dynamic approach of test data generation. In: IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 311-317. IEEE, Piscataway (1990)
[98] 98. Kuznetsov, V., Chipounov, V., Candea, G.: Testing closed-source binary device drivers with DDT. In: Barham, P., Roscoe, T. (eds.) USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)
[99] 99. Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A.: Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In: Deusen, M.S.V., Galil, Z., Reid, B.K. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 97-107. ACM, New York (1985)
[100] 100. Long, D.L., Clarke, L.A.: Data flow analysis of concurrent systems that use the rendezvous model of synchronization. In: Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification, pp. 21-35 (1991)
[101] 101. Majumdar, R., Sen, K.: Hybrid concolic testing. In: Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 416-426. IEEE, Piscataway (2007)
[102] 102. Majumdar, R., Xu, R.: Directed test generation using symbolic grammars. In: Stirewalt, R.E.K., Egyed, A., Fischer, B. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 134-143. ACM, New York (2007)
[103] 103. Majumdar, R., Xu, R.: Reducing test inputs using information partitions. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 555-569. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
[104] 104. Masticola, S.P., Ryder, B.G.: Non-concurrency analysis. In: Chen, M.C., Halstead, R. (eds.) Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPOPP), pp. 129-138. ACM, New York (1993)
[105] 105. Molnar, D.A., Wagner, D.: CatchConv: symbolic execution and run-time type inference for integer conversion errors. Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2007-23, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (2007)
[106] 106. de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337-340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
[107] 107. Musuvathi, M., Engler, D.R.: Model checking large network protocol implementations. In: Morris, R., Savage, S. (eds.) USENIX Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pp. 155-168. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2004)
[108] 108. Musuvathi, M., Park, D.Y.W., Chou, A., Engler, D.R., Dill, D.L.: CMC: a pragmatic approach to model checking real code. In: Culler, D.E., Druschel, P. (eds.) Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 75-88. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2002)
[109] 109. Musuvathi, M., Qadeer, S.: Iterative context bounding for systematic testing of multithreaded programs. In: Ferrante, J., McKinley, K.S. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 446-455. ACM, New York (2007)
[110] 110. Musuvathi, M., Qadeer, S., Ball, T., Basler, G., Nainar, P.A., Neamtiu, I.: Finding and reproducing heisenbugs in concurrent programs. In: Draves, R., van Renesse, R. (eds.) Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 267-280. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)
[111] 111. Namjoshi, K.S., Kurshan, R.P.: Syntactic program transformations for automatic abstraction. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 435-449. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) · Zbl 0974.68524
[112] 112. Necula, G.C., McPeak, S., Weimer, W.: CCured: type-safe retrofitting of legacy code. In: Launchbury, J., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 128-139. ACM, New York (2002) · Zbl 1323.68382
[113] 113. Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: An empirical study of optimizations in YOGI. In: Kramer, J., Bishop, J., Devanbu, P.T., Uchitel, S. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 355-364. ACM, New York (2010)
[114] 114. Offutt, A.J., Jin, Z., Pan, J.: The dynamic domain reduction procedure for test data generation. Softw. Pract. Exp. 29(2), 167-193 (1999)
[115] 115. Park, C., Sen, K.: Randomized active atomicity violation detection in concurrent programs. In: Harrold, M.J., Murphy, G.C. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 135-145. ACM, New York (2008)
[116] 116. Park, C., Sen, K., Hargrove, P., Iancu, C.: Efficient data race detection for distributed memory parallel programs. In: Lathrop, S., Costa, J., Kramer, W. (eds.) Conference on High Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC), pp. 51:1-51:12. ACM, New York (2011)
[117] 117. Park, C., Sen, K., Iancu, C.: Scaling data race detection for partitioned global address space programs. In: Malony, A.D., Nemirovsky, M., Midkiff, S.P. (eds.) International Conference on Supercomputing (ICS), pp. 47-58. ACM, New York (2013)
[118] 118. Peled, D.: All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 409-423. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
[119] 119. Penix, J., Visser, W., Park, S., Păsăreanu, C.S., Engstrom, E., Larson, A., Weininger, N.: Verifying time partitioning in the DEOS scheduling kernel. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 26(2), 103-135 (2005) · Zbl 1083.68575
[120] 120. Person, S., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.G., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Differential symbolic execution. In: Harrold, M.J., Murphy, G.C. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 226-237. ACM, New York (2008)
[121] 121. Person, S., Yang, G., Rungta, N., Khurshid, S.: Directed incremental symbolic execution. In: Hall, M.W., Padua, D.A. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 504-515. ACM, New York (2011)
[122] 122. Qadeer, S., Rehof, J.: Context-bounded model checking of concurrent software. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 93-107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) · Zbl 1087.68598
[123] 123. Qadeer, S., Wu, D.: KISS: keep it simple and sequential. In: Pugh, W., Chambers, C. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 14-24. ACM, New York (2004)
[124] 124. Queille, J., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) International Symposium on Programming. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337-351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982) · Zbl 0482.68028
[125] 125. Ramamoorthy, C.V., Ho, S.F., Chen, W.T.: On the automated generation of program test data. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2(4), 293-300 (1976)
[126] 126. Razavi, N., Ivancic, F., Kahlon, V., Gupta, A.: Concurrent test generation using concolic multi-trace analysis. In: Jhala, R., Igarashi, A. (eds.) Asian Symp. on Programming Languages and Systems (APLAS), pp. 239-255. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
[127] 127. Richardson, D.J.: TAOS: testing with analysis and oracle support. In: Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 138-153 (1994)
[128] 128. Saxena, P., Akhawe, D., Hanna, S., Mao, F., McCamant, S., Song, D.: A symbolic execution framework for JavaScript. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 513-528. IEEE, Piscataway (2010)
[129] 129. Saxena, P., Poosankam, P., McCamant, S., Song, D.: Loop-extended symbolic execution on binary programs. In: Rothermel, G., Dillon, L.K. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 225-236. ACM, New York (2009)
[130] 130. Sen, K.: CATG: a concolic testing tool for sequential Java programs.
[131] 131. Sen, K.: Scalable automated methods for dynamic program analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2006)
[132] 132. Sen, K.: Effective random testing of concurrent programs. In: Stirewalt, R.E.K., Egyed, A., Fischer, B. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 323-332. ACM, New York (2007)
[133] 133. Sen, K.: Race directed random testing of concurrent programs. In: Gupta, R., Amarasinghe, S.P. (eds.) Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pp. 11-21. ACM, New York (2008)
[134] 134. Sen, K., Agha, G.: Automated systematic testing of open distributed programs. In: Baresi, L., Heckel, R. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). LNCS, vol. 3922, pp. 339-356. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
[135] 135. Sen, K., Agha, G.: CUTE and jCUTE: concolic unit testing and explicit path model-checking tools. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 419-423. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
[136] 136. Sen, K., Agha, G.: A race-detection and flipping algorithm for automated testing of multi-threaded programs. In: Bin, E., Ziv, A., Ur, S. (eds.) Intl. Haifa Verification Conf. (HVC). LNCS, vol. 4383, pp. 166-182. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
[137] 137. Sen, K., Kalasapur, S., Brutch, T.G., Gibbs, S.: Jalangi: a selective record-replay and dynamic analysis framework for JavaScript. In: Meyer, B., Baresi, L., Mezini, M. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 488-498. ACM, New York (2013)
[138] 138. Sen, K., Marinov, D., Agha, G.: CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. In: Wermelinger, M., Gall, H.C. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 263-272. ACM, New York (2005)
[139] 139. Siegel, S.F., Mironova, A., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A.: Using model checking with symbolic execution to verify parallel numerical programs. In: Pollock, L.L., Pezzè, M. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 157-168. ACM, New York (2006)
[140] 140. Song, D.X., Brumley, D., Yin, H., Caballero, J., Jager, I., Kang, M.G., Liang, Z., Newsome, J., Poosankam, P., Saxena, P.: BitBlaze: a new approach to computer security via binary analysis. In: Sekar, R., Pujari, A.K. (eds.) International Conference on Information Systems Security (ICISS). LNCS, vol. 5352, pp. 1-25. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
[141] 141. Stoller, S.D.: Model-checking multi-threaded distributed java programs. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Model Checking of Software (SPIN). LNCS, vol. 1885. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) · Zbl 0976.68556
[142] 142. Taylor, R.N.: A general-purpose algorithm for analyzing concurrent programs. Commun. ACM 26(5), 362-376 (1983) · Zbl 0516.68027
[143] 143. Tillmann, N., de Halleux, J.: Pex—white box test generation for net. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R. (eds.) Intl. Conf. on Tests and Proofs (TAP). LNCS, vol. 4966, pp. 134-153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
[144] 144. Valmari, A.: Stubborn sets for reduced state space generation. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 491-515. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)
[145] 145. Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 332-344. IEEE, Piscataway (1986)
[146] 146. Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Grieskamp, W., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., Nachmanson, L.: Model-based testing of object-oriented reactive systems with Spec Explorer. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) Formal Methods and Testing. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 39-76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) · Zbl 1120.68354
[147] 147. Venet, A.: Abstract interpretation of the pi-calculus. In: Dam, M. (ed.) Analysis and Verification of Multiple-Agent Languages (LOMAPS). LNCS, vol. 1192, pp. 51-75. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
[148] 148. Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G.P., Park, S.: Model checking programs. In: Intl. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 3-12. IEEE, Piscataway (2000)
[149] 149. Visser, W., Păsăreanu, C.S., Khurshid, S.: Test input generation with Java PathFinder. In: Avrunin, G.S., Rothermel, G. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 97-107. ACM, New York (2004)
[150] 150. Vo, A., Vakkalanka, S.S., Delisi, M., Gopalakrishnan, G., Kirby, R.M., Thakur, R.: Formal verification of practical MPI programs. In: Reed, D.A., Sarkar, V. (eds.) Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPOPP), pp. 261-270. ACM, New York (2009)
[151] 151. Williams, N., Marre, B., Mouy, P., Roger, M.: Pathcrawler: automatic generation of path tests by combining static and dynamic analysis. In: Cin, M.D., Kaâniche, M., Pataricza, A. (eds.) European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC), pp. 281-292. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
[152] 152. Xu, R., Godefroid, P., Majumdar, R.: Testing for buffer overflows with length abstraction. In: Ryder, B.G., Zeller, A. (eds.) Intl. Symp. on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 27-38. ACM, New York (2008)
[153] 153. Yang, J., Chen, T., Wu, M., Xu, Z., Liu, X., Lin, H., Yang, M., Long, F., Zhang, L., Zhou, L.: MODIST: transparent model checking of unmodified distributed systems. In: Rexford, J., Sirer, E.G. (eds.) USENIX Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pp. 213-228. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2009)
[154] 154. Yang, J., Twohey, P., Engler, D.R., Musuvathi, M.: Using model checking to find serious file system errors. In: Brewer, E.A., Chen, P. (eds.) Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 273-288. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2004)
[155] 155. Yannakakis, M., Lee, D.: Testing finite state machines (extended abstract). In: Koutsougeras, C., Vitter, J.S. (eds.) ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 476-485. ACM, New York (1991)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.