A Sound Semantics for OCamllight

  • Scott Owens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4960)


Few programming languages have a mathematically rigorous definition or metatheory—in part because they are perceived as too large and complex to work with. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of such undertakings: we formalize a substantial portion of the semantics of Objective Caml’s core language (which had not previously been given a formal semantics), and we develop a mechanized type soundness proof in HOL. We also develop an executable version of the operational semantics, verify that it coincides with our semantic definition, and use it to test conformance between the semantics and the OCaml implementation. We intend our semantics to be a suitable substrate for the verification of OCaml programs.


Test Suite Operational Semantic Symbolic Execution Proof Assistant Type Constructor 
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.


  1. 1.
    Kahrs, S.: Mistakes and ambiguities in the definition of Standard ML. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-93-257, University of Edinburgh (April 1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossberg, A.: Defects in the revised definition of Standard ML. Technical report, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany (October 2001), Updated 2007/01/22Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leroy, X.: The Objective Caml System. 3.10 edn. (2007)
  4. 4.
    Sewell, P., Zappa Nardelli, F., Owens, S., Peskine, G., Ridge, T., Sarkar, S., Strniša, R.: Ott: Effective tool support for the working semanticist. In: Proc. ICFP (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norrish, M., Slind, K.: HOL-4,
  6. 6.
    Slind, K.: Reasoning about Terminating Functional Programs. PhD thesis, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurd, J.: First-order proof tactics in higher-order logic theorem provers. In: Proc. Design and Application of Strategies/Tactics in Higher Order Logics (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Compton, M.: Stenning’s protocol implemented in UDP and verified in Isabelle. In: Proc. Australasian Symposium on Theory of Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, H., Moore, J.S.: Java program verification via a JVM deep embedding in ACL2. In: Slind, K., Bunker, A., Gopalakrishnan, G.C. (eds.) TPHOLs 2004. LNCS, vol. 3223, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ridge, T.: Operational reasoning for concurrent Caml programs and weak memory models. In: Schneider, K., Brandt, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2007. LNCS, vol. 4732, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aydemir, B.E., Bohannon, A., Fairbairn, M., Foster, J.N., Pierce, B.C., Sewell, P., Vytiniotis, D., Washburn, G., Weirich, S., Zdancewic, S.: Mechanized metatheory for the masses: The POPLmark Challenge. In: Hurd, J., Melham, T. (eds.) TPHOLs 2005. LNCS, vol. 3603, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, G., Nipkow, T.: A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler. Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems 28(4), 619–695 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, D.K., Crary, K., Harper, R.: Towards a mechanized metatheory of Standard ML. In: Proc. Principles of Programming Languages (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maharaj, S., Gunter, E.L.: Studying the ML module system in HOL. In: Melham, T.F., Camilleri, J. (eds.) HUG 1994. LNCS, vol. 859, Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nipkow, T., van Oheimb, D.: Javalight is type-safe — definitely. In: POPL (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norrish, M.: C Formalised in HOL. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Syme, D.: Reasoning with the formal definition of Standard ML in HOL. In: Joyce, J.J., Seger, C.-J.H. (eds.) HUG 1993. LNCS, vol. 780, Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Syme, D.: Proving Java type soundness. In: Formal Syntax and Semantics of Java, pp. 83–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    VanInwegen, M.: The Machine-Assisted Proof of Programming Language Properties. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harper, R.: personal correspondence (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harper, R., Licata, D.: Mechanizing metatheory in a logical framework. Journal of Functional Programming 17(4–5), 613–673 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milner, R., Tofte, M., Harper, R., MacQueen, D.: The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matthews, J., Findler, R.B.: An operational semantics for Scheme. Journal of Functional Programming (to appear)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore, J.S.: Symbolic simulation: An ACL2 approach. In: Gopalakrishnan, G.C., Windley, P. (eds.) FMCAD 1998. LNCS, vol. 1522, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Owens
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Cambridge 

Personalised recommendations