Proof Obligations Preserving Compilation

  • Gilles Barthe
  • Tamara Rezk
  • Ando Saabas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3866)


The objective of this work is to study the interaction between program verification and program compilation, and to show that the proof that a source program meets its specification can be reused to show that the corresponding compiled program meets the same specification. More concretely, we introduce a core imperative language, and a bytecode language for a stack-based abstract machine, and a non-optimizing compiler. Then we consider for both languages verification condition generators that operate on programs annotated with loop invariants and procedure specifications. In such a setting, we show that compilation preserves proof obligations, in the sense that the proof obligations generated for the source annotated program are the same that those generated for the compiled annotated program (using the same loop invariants and procedure specifications). Furthermore, we discuss the relevance of our results to Proof Carrying Code.


Proof Obligation Software Company Source Program Program Point Arithmetic Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aspinall, D., Gilmore, S., Hofmann, M., Sannella, D., Stark, I.: Mobile Resource Guarantees for Smart Devices. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bannwart, F., M∙uller, P.: A program logic for bytecode. In: Spoto, F. (ed.) Proceedings of Bytecode 2005, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The spec# programming system: An overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 50–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benton, N.: A typed logic for stacks and jumps. Manuscript (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burdy, L., Pavlova, M.: Java bytecode specification and verification. In: Proceedings of SAC 2006 (2006)(to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Argenio, P., Barthe, G., Rezk, T.: Secure information flow by self-composition. In: Foccardi, R. (ed.) Proceedings of CSFW 2004, pp. 100–114. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joshua, D.G., Mitchell, W.: Special issue on VLISP. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 8(1/2) (March 1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamid, N.A., Shao, Z.: Interfacing hoare logic and type systems for foundational proof-carrying code. In: Slind, K., Bunker, A., Gopalakrishnan, G.C. (eds.) TPHOLs 2004. LNCS, vol. 3223, pp. 118–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Necula, G.C.: Proof-Carrying Code. In: Proceedings of POPL 1997, pp. 106–119. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Necula, G.C., Lee, P.: The Design and Implementation of a Certifying Compiler. In: Proceedings of PLDI 1998, pp. 333–344 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pnueli, A., Singerman, E., Siegel, M.: Translation validation. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quigley, C.L.: A Programming Logic for Java Bytecode Programs. In: Basin, D., Wolff, B. (eds.) TPHOLs 2003. LNCS, vol. 2758, pp. 41–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rinard, M.: Credible compilation. Manuscript (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rival, X.: Abstract Interpretation-Based Certification of Assembly Code. In: Zuck, L.D., Attie, P.C., Cortesi, A., Mukhopadhyay, S. (eds.) VMCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2575, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rival, X.: Symbolic Transfer Functions-based Approaches to Certified Compilation. In: Proceedings of POPL 2004, pp. 1–13. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wildmoser, M., Nipkow, T.: Asserting bytecode safety. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Barthe
    • 1
  • Tamara Rezk
    • 1
  • Ando Saabas
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Institute of CyberneticsTallinn University of TechnologyEstonia

Personalised recommendations