SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Information necessary to evaluate the preliminary design of the sunkeeper controller is presented as a compilation of the following documents: development plan, verification plan, hazard analysis, drawing list, and other information pertaining to the design of the subsystem.
The Scalable Analysis Toolkit (SAT) project aimed to demonstrate that it is feasible and useful to statically detect software bugs in very large systems. The technical focus of the project was on a relatively new class of constraint-based techniques for analysis software, where the desired facts about programs (e.g., the presence of a particular bug) are phrased as constraint problems to be solved. At the beginning of this project, the most successful forms of formal software analysis were limited forms of automatic theorem proving (as exemplified by the analyses used in language type systems and optimizing compilers), semi-automatic theorem proving for full verification, and model checking. With a few notable exceptions these approaches had not been demonstrated to scale to software systems of even 50,000 lines of code. Realistic approaches to large-scale software analysis cannot hope to make every conceivable formal method scale. Thus, the SAT approach is to mix different methods in one application by using coarse and fast but still adequate methods at the largest scales, and reserving the use of more precise but also more expensive methods at smaller scales for critical aspects (that is, aspects critical to the analysis problem under consideration) of a software system. The principled method proposed for combining a heterogeneous collection of formal systems with different scalability characteristics is mixed constraints. This idea had been used previously in small-scale applications with encouraging results: using mostly coarse methods and narrowly targeted precise methods, useful information (meaning the discovery of bugs in real programs) was obtained with excellent scalability.
eCC++ is a new compiler construction framework for embedding domain-specific programming languages within C++. That is, the host language is C++, the guest language is the DSL to be embedded in C++, and eCC++ is the tool that enables the embedding. The eCC++ framework is composed of three main components: a front-end, an API for program verification based on a functional and declarative intermediate representation (IR), and a Multi-Level Intermediate Representation (MLIR) code generator. The eCC++ front-end consists of a library of C++ classes and operators that can be used to define the guest language. Guest sources are compiled with any standard C++ compiler, and when run, the resulting executable generates an eCC++ IR representation of the program, which can be verified within the eCC++ framework. Finally, eCC++ allows for high-level and domain-specific optimizations before generating MLIR. In summary, eCC++ aims to act as a generic front-end that enables embedding guest languages into C++, and provides necessary compiler technology for program verification, targeting the existing capabilities in the MLIR infrastructure. The paper evaluates the eCC++ expressiveness and usability describing the process of embedding GraphIt, a high-performance graph language in C++.
An overview of the executive system design task is presented. The flight software executive system, software verification, phase B baseline avionics system review, higher order languages and compilers, and computer hardware features are also discussed.
At a recent press conference, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin encouraged NASA Ames Research Center to take a lead role in promoting research and development of advanced, high-performance computer technology, including nanotechnology. Manufacturers of leading-edge microprocessors currently perform large-scale simulations in the design and verification of semiconductor devices and microprocessors. Recently, the need for this intensive simulation and modeling analysis has greatly increased, due in part to the ever-increasing complexity of these devices, as well as the lessons of experiences such as the Pentium fiasco. Simulation, modeling, testing, and validation will be even more important for designing molecular computers because of the complex specification of millions of atoms, thousands of assembly steps, as well as the simulation and modeling needed to ensure reliable, robust and efficient fabrication of the molecular devices. The software for this capacity does not exist today, but it can be extrapolated from the software currently used in molecular modeling for other applications: semi-empirical methods, ab initio methods, self-consistent field methods, Hartree-Fock methods, molecular mechanics; and simulation methods for diamondoid structures. In as much as it seems clear that the application of such methods in nanotechnology will require powerful, highly powerful systems, this talk will discuss techniques and issues for performing these types of computations on parallel systems. We will describe system design issues (memory, I/O, mass storage, operating system requirements, special user interface issues, interconnects, bandwidths, and programming languages) involved in parallel methods for scalable classical, semiclassical, quantum, molecular mechanics, and continuum models; molecular nanotechnology computer-aided designs (NanoCAD) techniques; visualization using virtual reality techniques of structural models and assembly sequences; software required to control mini robotic manipulators for positional control; scalable numerical algorithms for reliability, verifications and testability. There appears no fundamental obstacle to simulating molecular compilers and molecular computers on high performance parallel computers, just as the Boeing 777 was simulated on a computer before manufacturing it.
We present a framework, called AIR, for verifying safety properties of assembly language programs via software model checking. AIR extends the applicability of predicate abstraction and counterexample guided abstraction refinement to the automated verification of low-level software. By working at the assembly level, AIR allows verification of programs for which source code is unavailable-such as legacy and COTS software-and programs that use features-such as pointers, structures, and object-orientation-that are problematic for source-level software verification tools. In addition, AIR makes no assumptions about the underlying compiler technology. We have implemented a prototype of AIR and present encouraging results on several non-trivial examples.
The paper presents a compilation of the results of a systems level Shuttle/payload contamination analysis and related computer modeling activities. The current technical assessment of the contamination problems anticipated during the Spacelab program are discussed and recommendations are presented on contamination abatement designs and operational procedures based on experience gained in the field of contamination analysis and assessment, dating back to the pre-Skylab era. The ultimate test of the Shuttle/Payload Contamination Evaluation program will be through comparison of predictions with measured levels of contamination during actual flight.
In the HPC area, both hardware and software move quickly. Often new hardware is developed and deployed, the corresponding software stack, including compilers and other tools, are under active development while leading edge software developers are working to port and tune their applications, all at the same time. While the software ecosystem is in flux, one of the key challenges for users is obtaining insight into the state of implementation of key features in the programming languages and models their applications are using – whether they have been implemented, and whether the implementation conforms to the specification, especially for newly implemented features (less tested by widespread use). OpenMP is one of the most prominent shared memory programming models used for on-node programming in HPC. With the shift towards accelerators (such as GPUs and FPGAs) and heterogeneous programming OpenMP features are getting more complex. It is natural to ask whether generative AI approaches, and large language models (LLMs) in particular, can help in producing validation and verification test suites to allow users better and faster insights into the availability and correctness of OpenMP features of interest. In this work, we explore the use of ChatGPT-4 to generate a suite of tests for OpenMP features. We have chosen a set of directives and clauses, a total of 78 combinations, which first appeared in OpenMP 3.0 (released in May 2008) but are also relevant for accelerators. We prompted ChatGPT to generate tests in the C and Fortran languages, for both host (CPU) and device (accelerator). On the Summit super-computer using the GNU implementation, we found that, of the 78 generated tests 67 C tests and 43 Fortran tests compiled successfully and fewer than those executed to completion. On further analysis we show that not all generated tests are valid. We document the process, results, and provide detailed analysis regarding the quality of tests generated. With the aim of providing input to a production quality validation and verification suite, we manually implement the corrections required to make the tests valid according to the current OpenMP specification. We quantify this effort as small, medium, or large, and record the lines of code changed to correct the invalid tests. With the corrected tests we validate recent implementations from HPE, AMD, and GNU on the Frontier supercomputer. Our experiment and subsequent analysis show that although LLMs are capable of producing HPC specific codes, they are limited by their understanding of the deeper semantics and restrictions of programming models such as OpenMP. Unsurprisingly more commonly used features have better support, while some OpenMP 3.0 directives such as sections and tasking are not universally supported on accelerators. We demonstrate that successful compilation and execution to completion are inadequate metrics for evaluating generated code and that, at this time, commodity LLMs require expert intervention for code verification. This points to gaps in the training data that is currently available for HPC. We demonstrate that with "small" effort 37% of generated invalid C tests and 63% of generated invalid Fortran tests could be corrected. This improves productivity of test generation as we circumvent writing from scratch and the common programming errors associated with it.
The verified code for the SIFT Executive is not the code that executes on the SIFT system as delivered. The running versions of the SIFT Executive contain optimizations and special code relating to the messy interface to the hardware broadcast interface and to packing of data to conserve space in the store of the BDX930 processors. The running code was in fact developed prior to and without consideration of any mechanical verification. This was regarded as necessary experimentation with the SIFT hardware and special purpose Pascal compiler. The Pascal code sections cover: the selection of a schedule from the global executive broadcast, scheduling, dispatching, three way voting, and error reporting actions of the SIFT Executive. Not included in these sections of Pascal code are: the global executive, five way voting, clock synchronization, interactive consistency, low level broadcasting, and program loading, initialization, and schedule construction.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra / SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.
Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.