Extended static checking for haskell

ABSTRACT

Program errors are hard to detect and are costly both to programmers who spend significant efforts in debugging, and to systems that are guarded by runtime checks. Extended static checking can reduce these costs by helping to detect bugs at compile-time, where possible. Extended static checking has been applied to objectoriented languages, like Java and C#, but it has not been applied to a lazy functional language, like Haskell. In this paper, we describe an extended static checking tool for Haskell, named ESC/Haskell, that is based on symbolic computation and assisted by a few novel strategies. One novelty is our use of Haskell as the specification language itself for pre/post conditions. Any Haskell function (including recursive and higher order functions) can be used in our specification which allows sophisticated properties to be expressed. To perform automatic verification, we rely on a novel technique based on symbolic computation that is augmented by counter-example guided unrolling. This technique can automate our verification process and be efficiently implemented.

REFERENCES

• 1: Lennart Augustsson, Cayenne—a language with dependent types, Proceedings of the third ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming, p.239-250, September 26-29, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
• 2: Thomas Ball , Sriram K. Rajamani, The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis, Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.1-3, January 16-18, 2002, Portland, Oregon
• 3: Mike Barnett, K. Rustan M. Leino, and Wolfram Schulte. The Spec# programming system: An overview. CASSIS, LNCS 3362, 2004.
• 4: Koen Claessen and John Hughes. Specification-based testing with QuickCheck, volume Fun of Programming of Cornerstones of Computing, chapter 2, pages 17--40. Palgrave, March 2003.
• 5: David Detlefs , Greg Nelson , James B. Saxe, Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.52 n.3, p.365-473, May 2005 [doi>10.1145/1066100.1066102]
• 6: Peter Dybjer , Qiao Haiyan , Makoto Takeyama, Verifying Haskell Programs by Combining Testing and Proving, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quality Software, p.272, November 06-07, 2003
• 7: Robert Bruce Findler , Matthias Felleisen, Contracts for higher-order functions, Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming, p.48-59, October 04-06, 2002, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
• 8: Cormac Flanagan , K. Rustan M. Leino , Mark Lillibridge , Greg Nelson , James B. Saxe , Raymie Stata, Extended static checking for Java, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 17-19, 2002, Berlin, Germany
• 9: Cormac Flanagan , James B. Saxe, Avoiding exponential explosion: generating compact verification conditions, Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.193-205, January 2001, London, United Kingdom
• 10: Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. Counterexample-guided control. Automata, Languages and Programming: 30th International Colloquium, (ICALP03), 2719:886--902, 2003.
• 11: Ralf Hinze, Johan Jeuring, and Andres Löh. Typed contracts for functional programming. In FLOPS '06: Functional and Logic Programming: 8th International Symposium, pages 208--225, 2006.
• 12: Kohei Honda , Nobuko Yoshida, A compositional logic for polymorphic higher-order functions, Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Principles and practice of declarative programming, p.191-202, August 24-26, 2004, Verona, Italy [doi>10.1145/1013963.1013985]
• 13: James Hook, Mark Jones, Richard Kieburtz, John Matthews, Peter White, Thomas Hallgren, and Iavor Diatchki. Programatica. http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/programatica/bodynew.htm, 2005.
• 14: K. Rustan M. Leino , Greg Nelson, An Extended Static Checker for Modular-3, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Compiler Construction, p.302-305, March 28-April 04, 1998
• 15: Neil Mitchell and Colin Runciman. Unfailing Haskell: A static checker for pattern matching. In TFP '05: The 6th Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming, pages 313--328, 2005.
• 16: Andrew Moran , David Sands, Improvement in a lazy context: an operational theory for call-by-need, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.43-56, January 20-22, 1999, San Antonio, Texas, United States [doi>10.1145/292540.292547]
• 17: Simon L. Peyton Jones, Compiling Haskell by Program Transformation: A Report from the Trenches, Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems, p.18-44, April 22-24, 1996
• 18: Tim Sheard, Languages of the future, Companion to the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, October 24-28, 2004, Vancouver, BC, CANADA [doi>10.1145/1028664.1028711]
• 19: The GHC Team. The Glasgow Haskell Compiler User's Guide. www.haskell.org/ghc/documentation.html, 1998.
• 20: Hongwei Xi , Frank Pfenning, Dependent types in practical programming, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.214-227, January 20-22, 1999, San Antonio, Texas, United States [doi>10.1145/292540.292560]
• 21: Dana N. Xu. Extended static checking for Haskell - technical report. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/nx200/research/escH-tr.ps, 2006.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

General Terms:
Languages, Verification

Keywords:
counterexample guided unrolling, pre/postcondition, symbolic simplification