Advertisement

Mechanized Semantics for Compiler Verification

  • Xavier Leroy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7705)

Abstract

The formal verification of compilers and related programming tools depends crucially on the availability of appropriate mechanized semantics for the source, intermediate and target languages. In this invited talk, I review various forms of operational semantics and their mechanization, based on my experience with the formal verification of the CompCert C compiler.

Keywords

Target Language Operational Semantic Label Transition System Source Language Proof Assistant 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: the pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright, A.K., Felleisen, M.: A syntactic approach to type soundness. Information and Computation 115(1), 38–94 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aydemir, B.E., Charguéraud, A., Pierce, B.C., Pollack, R., Weirich, S.: Engineering formal metatheory. In: 35th Symposium Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 3–15. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appel, A.W., McAllester, D.A.: An indexed model of recursive types for foundational proof-carrying code. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 23(5), 657–683 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danielsson, N.A.: Operational semantics using the partiality monad. In: International Conference on Functional Programming 2012, pp. 127–138. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leroy, X.: Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM 52(7), 107–115 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leroy, X.: Formal certification of a compiler back-end, or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: 33rd Symposium Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 42–54. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blazy, S., Dargaye, Z., Leroy, X.: Formal Verification of a C Compiler Front-End. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 460–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leroy, X.: A formally verified compiler back-end. Journal of Automated Reasoning 43(4), 363–446 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leroy, X., Grall, H.: Coinductive big-step operational semantics. Information and Computation 207(2), 284–304 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Appel, A.W., Blazy, S.: Separation Logic for Small-Step Cminor. In: Schneider, K., Brandt, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2007. LNCS, vol. 4732, pp. 5–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felleisen, M., Friedman, D.P.: Control operators, the SECD machine and the λ-calculus. In: Formal Description of Programming Concepts III, pp. 131–141. North-Holland (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liang, C., Miller, D.: Focusing and polarization in linear, intuitionistic, and classical logics. Theoretical Computer Science 410(46), 4747–4768 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curien, P.L., Munch-Maccagnoni, G.: The Duality of Computation under Focus. In: Calude, C.S., Sassone, V. (eds.) TCS 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 323, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benton, N., Hur, C.K.: Biorthogonality, step-indexing and compiler correctness. In: International Conference on Functional Programming 2009, pp. 97–108. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Leroy
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Paris-RocquencourtFrance

Personalised recommendations