A Semantic Basis for Local Reasoning

  • Hongseok Yang
  • Peter O’Hearn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2303)


We present a semantic analysis of a recently proposed formalism for local reasoning, where a specification (and hence proof) can concentrate on only those cells that a program accesses. Our main results are the soundness and, in a sense, completeness of a rule that allows frame axioms, which describe invariant properties of portions of heap memory, to be inferred automatically; thus, these axioms can be avoided when writing specifications.


Program Logic Operational Semantic Frame Problem Total Correctness Commutative Monoid 
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.
    R.-J. R. Back. On the Correctness of Refinement Steps in Program Development. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, 1978. Report A-1978-4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Ishtiaq and P. O’Hearn. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In Principles of Programming Languages, pages 14–26, January 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. C. Morgan. The specification statement. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 10(3), Jul 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Naumann. Calculating sharp adaptation rules. Information Processing Letters, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. O’Hearn, J. Reynolds, and H. Yang. Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In L. Fribourg, editor, Proceedings of 15th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Science Logic: CSL 2001, pages 1–19. Springer-Verlag. LNCS 2142.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. W. O’Hearn and D. J. Pym. The logic of bunched implications. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 5(2):215–244, June 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. J. Pym. The Semantics and Proof Theory of the Logic of Bunched Implications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London, 2002. To appear.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Reiter. Knowledge in Action. MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. C. Reynolds. Intuitionistic reasoning about shared mutable data structure. In Jim Davies, Bill Roscoe, and Jim Woodcock, editors, Millennial Perspectives in Computer Science, pages 303–321, Houndsmill, Hampshire, 2000. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. C. Reynolds. Lectures on reasoning about shared mutable data structure. IFIP Working Group 2.3 School/Seminar on State-of-the-Art Program Design Using Logic. Tandil, Argentina, September 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Yang. Local Reasoning for Stateful Programs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Yang and U. S. Reddy. On the semantics of refinement calculi. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, pages 359–374. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongseok Yang
    • 1
  • Peter O’Hearn
    • 2
  1. 1.ROPASKAISTKorea
  2. 2.Queen MaryUniversity of LondonLondon

Personalised recommendations