SL-COMP: competition of solvers for separation logic (original) (raw)

References

  1. O’Hearn, P.: Separation logic. Commun. ACM 62(2), 86–95 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3211968
    Article Google Scholar
  2. O’Hearn, P.: Separation logic. http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/p.ohearn/SeparationLogic/Separation_Logic/SL_Home.html
  3. StarExec: http://www.starexec.org
  4. Sighireanu, M., Cok, D.: Report on SL-COMP’14. JSAT 9, 173–186 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3233/SAT190107
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Beyer, D., Huisman, M., Kordon, F., Steffen, B. (eds.): Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 25 Years of TACAS: TOOLympics, Held as Part of ETAPS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11, 2019, Proceedings, Part III, LNCS, vol. 11429. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3
  6. SmallFoot: http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/p.ohearn/smallfoot/
  7. Chin, W.N., David, C., Nguyen, H.H., Qin, S.: Automated verification of shape, size and bag properties via user-defined predicates in separation logic. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(9), 1006–1036 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2010.07.004
    Article MATH Google Scholar
  8. Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Piessens, F.: A quick tour of the VeriFast program verifier. In: APLAS, LNCS, vol. 6461, pp. 304–311. Springer (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17164-2_21
  9. SL-COMP’2018: https://www.irif.fr/~sighirea/sl-comp/18/
  10. Sighireanu, M., Pérez, J.A.N., Rybalchenko, A., Gorogiannis, N., Iosif, R., Reynolds, A., Serban, C., Katelaan, J., Matheja, C., Noll, T., Zuleger, F., Chin, W., Le, Q.L., Ta, Q., Le, T., Nguyen, T., Khoo, S., Cyprian, M., Rogalewicz, A., Vojnar, T., Enea, C., Lengál, O., Gao, C., Wu, Z.: SL-COMP: competition of solvers for separation logic. In: Beyer et al. [5], pp. 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_8
  11. SL-COMP website. https://sl-comp.github.io/
  12. SL-COMP repository. https://github.com/sl-comp
  13. Iosif, R., Serban, C., Reynolds, A., Sighireanu, M.: Encoding separation logic in SMT-LIB v2.5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/32119680
  14. Barrett, C., Fontaine, P., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6. Tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/32119681
  15. Antonopoulos, T., Gorogiannis, N., Haase, C., Kanovich, M.I., Ouaknine, J.: Foundations for decision problems in separation logic with general inductive predicates. In: FOSSACS, LNCS, vol. 8412, pp. 411–425. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54830-7_27
  16. Demri, S., Deters, M.: Separation logics and modalities: a survey. J. Appl. Non Class. Log. 25(1), 50–99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/32119682
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
  17. Iosif, R., Rogalewicz, A., Simácek, J.: The tree width of separation logic with recursive definitions. In: CADE, LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 21–38. Springer (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38574-2_2
  18. Enea, C., Sighireanu, M., Wu, Z.: On automated lemma generation for separation logic with inductive definitions. In: ATVA, LNCS, vol. 9364, pp. 80–96. Springer (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24953-7_7
  19. Pérez, J.A.N., Rybalchenko, A.: Separation logic modulo theories. In: APLAS, LNCS, vol. 8301, pp. 90–106. Springer (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03542-0_7
  20. Gu, X., Chen, T., Wu, Z.: A complete decision procedure for linearly compositional separation logic with data constraints. In: IJCAR, LNCS, vol. 9706, pp. 532–549. Springer (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_36
  21. Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N., Petersen, R.L.: A generic cyclic theorem prover. In: APLAS, LNCS, vol. 7705, pp. 350–367. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35182-2_25
  22. Reynolds, A., Iosif, R., Serban, C., King, T.: A decision procedure for separation logic in SMT. In: ATVA, pp. 244–261 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46520-3_16
  23. Katelaan, J., Matheja, C., Noll, T., Zuleger, F.: Harrsh: A tool for unified reasoning about symbolic-heap separation logic. In: LPAR-22, Kalpa Publications in Computing, vol. 9, pp. 23–36. EasyChair (2018). https://doi.org/10.29007/qwd8
  24. S2S: https://doi.org/10.1145/32119683
  25. Iosif, R., Rogalewicz, A., Vojnar, T.: Deciding entailments in inductive separation logic with tree automata. In: ATVA, LNCS, vol. 8837, pp. 201–218. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11936-6_15
  26. Brotherston, J., Fuhs, C., Pérez, J.A.N., Gorogiannis, N.: A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates. In: CSL-LICS, pp. 25:1–25:10. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2603088.2603091
  27. Ta, Q.T., Le, T.C., Khoo, S.C., Chin, W.N.: Automated lemma synthesis in symbolic-heap separation logic. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2(POPL), 9:1-9:29 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/32119684
    Article Google Scholar
  28. Enea, C., Lengál, O., Sighireanu, M., Vojnar, T.: Compositional entailment checking for a fragment of separation logic. In: APLAS, LNCS, vol. 8858, pp. 314–333. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12736-1_17
  29. Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: Beyond reachability: shape abstraction in the presence of pointer arithmetic. In: SAS, LNCS, vol. 4134, pp. 182–203. Springer (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11823230_13
  30. Brotherston, J., Gorogiannis, N., Kanovich, M.: Biabduction (and related problems) in array separation logic. In: CADE, vol. 10395, pp. 472–490. Springer (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_29
  31. Kimura, D., Tatsuta, M.: Decidability for entailments of symbolic heaps with arrays. CoRR arXiv:1802.05935 (2018)

Download references