On conservativity of concurrent Haskell

The calculus CHF models Concurrent Haskell extended by concurrent, implicit futures. It is a process calculus with concurrent threads, monadic concurrent evaluation, and includes a pure functional lambda-calculus which comprises data constructors, case-expressions, letrec-expressions, and Haskell’s seq. Futures can be implemented in Concurrent Haskell using the primitive unsafeInterleaveIO, which is available in most implementations of Haskell. Our main result is conservativity of CHF, that is, all equivalences of pure functional expressions are also valid in CHF. This implies that compiler optimizations and transformations from pure Haskell remain valid in Concurrent Haskell even if it is extended by futures. We also show that this is no longer valid if Concurrent Haskell is extended by the arbitrary use of unsafeInterleaveIO

On correctness of buffer implementations in a concurrent lambda calculus with futures

Motivated by the question of correctness of a specific implementation of concurrent buffers in the lambda calculus with futures underlying Alice ML, we prove that concurrent buffers and handled futures can correctly encode each other. Correctness means that our encodings preserve and reflect the observations of may- and must-convergence. This also shows correctness wrt. program semantics, since the encodings are adequate translations wrt. contextual semantics. While these translations encode blocking into queuing and waiting, we also provide an adequate encoding of buffers in a calculus without handles, which is more low-level and uses busy-waiting instead of blocking. Furthermore we demonstrate that our correctness concept applies to the whole compilation process from high-level to low-level concurrent languages, by translating the calculus with buffers, handled futures and data constructors into a small core language without those constructs

Program equivalence for a concurrent lambda calculus with futures

Reasoning about the correctness of program transformations requires a notion of program equivalence. We present an observational semantics for the concurrent lambda calculus with futures Lambda(fut), which formalizes the operational semantics of the programming language Alice ML. We show that natural program optimizations, as well as partial evaluation with respect to deterministic rules, are correct for Lambda(fut). This relies on a number of fundamental properties that we establish for our observational semantics

Observational Semantics for a Concurrent Lambda Calculus with Reference Cells and Futures

International audienceWe present an observational semantics for lambda(fut), a concurrent lambda calculus with reference cells and futures. The calculus lambda(fut) models the operational semantics of the concurrent higher-order programming language Alice ML. Our result is a powerful notion of equivalence that is the coarsest nontrivial congruence distinguishing observably different processes. It justifies a maximal set of correct program transformations, and it includes all of lambda(fut)'s deterministic reduction rules, in particular, call-by-value beta reduction

On proving the equivalence of concurrency primitives

Various concurrency primitives have been added to sequential programming languages, in order to turn them concurrent. Prominent examples are concurrent buffers for Haskell, channels in Concurrent ML, joins in JoCaml, and handled futures in Alice ML. Even though one might conjecture that all these primitives provide the same expressiveness, proving this equivalence is an open challenge in the area of program semantics. In this paper, we establish a first instance of this conjecture. We show that concurrent buffers can be encoded in the lambda calculus with futures underlying Alice ML. Our correctness proof results from a systematic method, based on observational semantics with respect to may and must convergence

Correctly Translating Concurrency Primitives

International audienceMotivated by the question of correctness of a specific implementation of concurrent buffers in the lambda calculus with futures underlying Alice ML, we prove that concurrent buffers and handled futures can correctly encode each other. Correctness means that our encodings preserve and reflect the observations of may- and must-convergence. This also shows correctness wrt. program semantics, since the encodings are adequate translations wrt. contextual semantics. While these translations encode blocking into queuing and waiting, we also provide an adequate encoding of buffers in a calculus without handles, which is more low-level and uses busy-waiting instead of blocking. Furthermore we demonstrate that our correctness concept applies to the whole compilation process from high-level to low-level concurrent languages, by translating the calculus with buffers, handled futures and data constructors into a small core language without those constructs

Program equivalences for concurrency abstractions in a concurrent lambda calculus with buffers, cells and futures

Various concurrency primitives had been added to functional programming languages in different ways. In Haskell such a primitive is a MVar, joins are described in JoCaml and AliceML uses futures to provide a concurrent behaviour. Despite these concurrency libraries seem to behave well, their equivalence between each other has not been proven yet. An expressive formal system is needed. In their paper "On proving the equivalence of concurrency primitives", Jan Schwinghammer, David Sabel, Joachim Niehren, and Manfred Schmidt-Schauß define a universal calculus for concurrency primitives known as the typed lambda calculus with futures. There, equivalence of processes had been proved. An encoding of simple one-place buffers had been worked out. This bachelor’s thesis is about encoding more complex concurrency abstractions in the lambda calculus with futures and proving correctness of its operational semantics. Given the new abstractions, we will discuss program equivalence between them. Finally, we present a library written in Haskell that exposes futures and our concurrency abstractions as a proof of concept

Counterexamples to simulation in non-deterministic call-by-need lambda-calculi with letrec

This note shows that in non-deterministic extended lambda calculi with letrec, the tool of applicative (bi)simulation is in general not usable for contextual equivalence, by giving a counterexample adapted from data flow analysis. It also shown that there is a flaw in a lemma and a theorem concerning finite simulation in a conference paper by the first two authors

An abstract machine for concurrent Haskell with futures

We show how Sestoft’s abstract machine for lazy evaluation of purely functional programs can be extended to evaluate expressions of the calculus CHF – a process calculus that models Concurrent Haskell extended by imperative and implicit futures. The abstract machine is modularly constructed by first adding monadic IO-actions to the machine and then in a second step we add concurrency. Our main result is that the abstract machine coincides with the original operational semantics of CHF, w.r.t. may- and should-convergence