The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.08 - August (2000 vol.26)
pp: 675-686
<p><b>Abstract</b>—This paper describes the use of formal development methods on an industrial safety-critical application. The Z notation was used for documenting the system specification and part of the design, and the SPARK<ref type="fn" rid="fE06751">1</ref> subset of Ada was used for coding. However, perhaps the most distinctive nature of the project lies in the amount of proof that was carried out: proofs were carried out both at the Z level—approximately 150 proofs in 500 pages—and at the SPARK code level—approximately 9,000 verification conditions generated and discharged. The project was carried out under UK Interim Defence Standards 00-55 and 00-56, which require the use of formal methods on safety-critical applications. It is believed to be the first to be completed against the rigorous demands of the 1991 version of these standards. The paper includes comparisons of proof with the various types of testing employed, in terms of their efficiency at finding faults. The most striking result is that the Z proof appears to be substantially more efficient at finding faults than the most efficient testing phase. Given the importance of early fault detection, we believe this helps to show the significant benefit and practicality of large-scale proof on projects of this kind.</p>
Safety-critical software, formal specification, SPARK, specification proof, code proof, proof vs. testing, industrial case study.
Steve King, Jonathan Hammond, Rod Chapman, Andy Pryor, "Is Proof More Cost-Effective Than Testing?", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.26, no. 8, pp. 675-686, August 2000, doi:10.1109/32.879807
17 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool