Difference between revisions of "CITADEL"
(→Discussions) |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
that in the first version we may leave aside those containers, that | that in the first version we may leave aside those containers, that | ||
aren't inherited from CONTAINER. | aren't inherited from CONTAINER. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Support for loop invariants | ||
+ | Ilinca: Does the "classic" Daikon support loop invariants? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nadia: Daikon uses standard program point | ||
+ | suffixes to infer more invariants. E.g., it understands that | ||
+ | some_routine:::ENTER and some_routine:::EXIT are entry and exit points | ||
+ | of the same routine. Thanks to this, it knows `old' values of variables | ||
+ | at exit and can infer invariants like "x = old x". As I understood, if | ||
+ | Daikon sees an unknown suffix, it treats corresponding program point as, | ||
+ | so to say, "standalone" and doesn't try to connect it with any other. | ||
+ | We don't need any extra support from Daikon to handle loop invariants. |
Revision as of 05:52, 14 December 2007
Overview
CITADEL (Contract-Inference Tool that Applies Daikon to the Eiffel Language) is a tool that provides an Eiffel front-end for the Daikon invariant detector. It is being implemented as a Master's project by Nadia Polikarpova supervised by Ilinca Ciupa (ETH).
Discussions
- Flattened variables
Nadia: Daikon can process values of only few types: five scalar types (boolean, integer, double, string and hashcode) and five more types, which are arrays of these scalars. So, if in Eiffel code we a have a variable of one of basic types (BOOLEAN, NATURAL, INTEGER, REAL or STRING) we can print its value directly as if it has one of Daikon's types. If, however, we have a variable of any other type, we have to collect all the information about it that is of interest and is available at certain program point, and present this information to Daikon as a set of variables, which have Daikon types. The information of interest about a variable includes results of all queries that can be called on this variable at this program point. However, since queries results may themselves be of non-basic types, we have to perform this operation recursively (to a certain depth). For a reference variable information of interest includes also its address (Daikon type "hashcode" is intended for representing object addresses). For example, if we had a variable c: POINT, queries of class POINT available at current program point were `x: REAL', `y: REAL' and `twin: POINT' and flattening depth were set to 2, then `c.flattened' would be a set of variables: {$c, c.x, c.y, $c.twin, c.twin.x, c.twin.y}. Containers need special kind of flattening. If we want Daikon to handle them sensibly, they should be converted to arrays of scalars (to be more precise, it should be done only if all container elements are observable at current program point...). It isn't difficult for descendants of CONTAINER class from standard library. Instrumenter may check, if a variable is an indirect instance of CONTAINER, get its `linear_representation', then traverse it and output as array. I think that in the first version we may leave aside those containers, that aren't inherited from CONTAINER.
- Support for loop invariants
Ilinca: Does the "classic" Daikon support loop invariants?
Nadia: Daikon uses standard program point suffixes to infer more invariants. E.g., it understands that some_routine:::ENTER and some_routine:::EXIT are entry and exit points of the same routine. Thanks to this, it knows `old' values of variables at exit and can infer invariants like "x = old x". As I understood, if Daikon sees an unknown suffix, it treats corresponding program point as, so to say, "standalone" and doesn't try to connect it with any other. We don't need any extra support from Daikon to handle loop invariants.