Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFlag-Based Big-Step Semantics
125
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Casper Bach Poulsen
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Structural operational semantic specifications come in different styles: small-step and big-step. A problem with the big-step style is that specifying divergence and abrupt termination gives rise to annoying duplication. We present a novel approach to representing divergence and abrupt termination in big-step semantics using status flags. This avoids the duplication problem, and uses fewer rules and premises for representing divergence than previous approaches in the literature.
rate research
Read More
We propose a general proof technique to show that a predicate is sound, that is, prevents stuck computation, with respect to a big-step semantics. This result may look surprising, since in big-step semantics there is no difference between non-terminating and stuck computations, hence soundness cannot even be expressed. The key idea is to define constructions yielding an extended version of a given arbitrary big-step semantics, where the difference is made explicit. The extended semantics are exploited in the meta-theory, notably they are necessary to show that the proof technique works. However, they remain transparent when using the proof technique, since it consists in checking three conditions on the original rules only, as we illustrate by several examples.
It is well-known that big-step semantics is not able to distinguish stuck and non-terminating computations. This is a strong limitation as it makes very difficult to reason about properties involving infinite computations, such as type soundness, which cannot even be expressed. We show that this issue is only apparent: the distinction between stuck and diverging computations is implicit in any big-step semantics and it just needs to be uncovered. To achieve this goal, we develop a systematic study of big-step semantics: we introduce an abstract definition of what a big-step semantics is, we define a notion of computation by formalising the evaluation algorithm implicitly associated with any big-step semantics, and we show how to canonically extend a big-step semantics to characterise stuck and diverging computations. Building on these notions, we describe a general proof technique to show that a predicate is sound, that is, it prevents stuck computation, with respect to a big-step semantics. One needs to check three properties relating the predicate and the semantics and, if they hold, the predicate is sound. The extended semantics are essential to establish this meta-logical result, but are of no concerns to the user, who only needs to prove the three properties of the initial big-step semantics. Finally, we illustrate the technique by several examples, showing that it is applicable also in cases where subject reduction does not hold, hence the standard technique for small-step semantics cannot be used.
A reliable technique for deductive program verification should be proven sound with respect to the semantics of the programming language. For each different language, the construction of a separate soundness proof is often a laborious undertaking. In language-independent program verification, common aspects of computer programs are addressed to enable sound reasoning for all languages. In this work, we propose a solution for the sound reasoning about iteration and recursion based on the big-step operational semantics of any programming language. We give inductive proofs on the soundness and relative completeness of our reasoning technique. We illustrate the technique at simplified programming languages of the imperative and functional paradigms, with diverse features. We also mechanism all formal results in the Coq proof assistant.
We investigate representations of imperative programs as constrained Horn clauses. Starting from operational semantics transition rules, we proceed by writing interpreters as constrained Horn clause programs directly encoding the rules. We then specialise an interpreter with respect to a given source program to achieve a compilation of the source language to Horn clauses (an instance of the first Futamura projection). The process is described in detail for an interpreter for a subset of C, directly encoding the rules of big-step operational semantics for C. A similar translation based on small-step semantics could be carried out, but we show an approach to obtaining a small-step representation using a linear interpreter for big-step Horn clauses. This interpreter is again specialised to achieve the translation from big-step to small-step style. The linear small-step program can be transformed back to a big-step non-linear program using a third interpreter. A regular path expression is computed for the linear program using Tarjans algorithm, and this regular expression then guides an interpreter to compute a program path. The transformation is realised by specialisation of the path interpreter. In all of the transformation phases, we use an established partial evaluator and exploit standard logic program transformation to remove redundant data structures and arguments in predicates and rename predicates to make clear their link to statements in the original source program.
A rigid loop is a for-loop with a counter not accessible to the loop body or any other part of a program. Special instructions for rigid loops are introduced on top of the syntax of the program algebra PGA. Two different semantic projections are provided and proven equivalent. One of these is taken to have definitional status on the basis of two criteria: `normative semantic adequacy and `indicative algorithmic adequacy.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
