Differential cost analysis with simultaneous potentials and anti-potentials

We present a novel approach to differential cost analysis that, given a program revision, attempts to statically bound the difference in resource usage, or cost, between the two program versions. Differential cost analysis is particularly interesting because of the many compelling applications for it, such as detecting resource-use regressions at code-review time or proving the absence of certain side-channel vulnerabilities. One prior approach to differential cost analysis is to apply relational reasoning that conceptually constructs a product program on which one can over-approximate the difference in costs between the two program versions. However, a significant challenge in any relational approach is effectively aligning the program versions to get precise results. In this paper, our key insight is that we can avoid the need for and the limitations of program alignment if, instead, we bound the difference of two cost-bound summaries rather than directly bounding the concrete cost difference. In particular, our method computes a threshold value for the maximal difference in cost between two program versions simultaneously using two kinds of cost-bound summaries---a potential function that evaluates to an upper bound for the cost incurred in the first program and an anti-potential function that evaluates to a lower bound for the cost incurred in the second. Our method has a number of desirable properties: it can be fully automated, it allows optimizing the threshold value on relative cost, it is suitable for programs that are not syntactically similar, and it supports non-determinism. We have evaluated an implementation of our approach on a number of program pairs collected from the literature, and we find that our method computes tight threshold values on relative cost in most example

Differential cost analysis with simultaneous potentials and anti-potentials

We present a novel approach to differential cost analysis that, given a program revision, attempts to statically bound the difference in resource usage, or cost, between the two program versions. Differential cost analysis is particularly interesting because of the many compelling applications for it, such as detecting resource-use regressions at code-review time or proving the absence of certain side-channel vulnerabilities. One prior approach to differential cost analysis is to apply relational reasoning that conceptually constructs a product program on which one can over-approximate the difference in costs between the two program versions. However, a significant challenge in any relational approach is effectively aligning the program versions to get precise results. In this paper, our key insight is that we can avoid the need for and the limitations of program alignment if, instead, we bound the difference of two cost-bound summaries rather than directly bounding the concrete cost difference. In particular, our method computes a threshold value for the maximal difference in cost between two program versions simultaneously using two kinds of cost-bound summaries---a potential function that evaluates to an upper bound for the cost incurred in the first program and an anti-potential function that evaluates to a lower bound for the cost incurred in the second. Our method has a number of desirable properties: it can be fully automated, it allows optimizing the threshold value on relative cost, it is suitable for programs that are not syntactically similar, and it supports non-determinism. We have evaluated an implementation of our approach on a number of program pairs collected from the literature, and we find that our method computes tight threshold values on relative cost in most examples

The Three Pillars of Machine Programming

In this position paper, we describe our vision of the future of machine programming through a categorical examination of three pillars of research. Those pillars are:(i) intention,(ii) invention, and (iii) adaptation. Intention emphasizes advancements in the human-to-computer and computer-to-machine-learning interfaces. Invention emphasizes the creation or refinement of algorithms or core hardware and software building blocks through machine learning (ML). Adaptation emphasizes advances in the use of ML-based constructs to autonomously evolve software

Zooid: a DSL for certified multiparty computation: from mechanised metatheory to certified multiparty processes

We design and implement Zooid, a domain specific language for certified multiparty communication, embedded in Coq and implemented atop our mechanisation framework of asynchronous multiparty session types (the first of its kind). Zooid provides a fully mechanised metatheory for the semantics of global and local types, and a fully verified end-point process language that faithfully reflects the type-level behaviours and thus inherits the global types properties such as deadlock freedom, protocol compliance, and liveness guarantees

PARSNIP: Performant Architecture for Race Safety with No Impact on Precision

Data race detection is a useful dynamic analysis for multithreaded programs that is a key building block in record-and-replay, enforcing strong consistency models, and detecting concurrency bugs. Existing software race detectors are precise but slow, and hardware support for precise data race detection relies on assumptions like type safety that many programs violate in practice. We propose PARSNIP, a fully precise hardware-supported data race detector. PARSNIP exploits new insights into the redundancy of race detection metadata to reduce storage overheads. PARSNIP also adopts new race detection metadata encodings that accelerate the common case while preserving soundness and completeness. When bounded hardware resources are exhausted, PARSNIP falls back to a software race detector to preserve correctness. PARSNIP does not assume that target programs are type safe, and is thus suitable for race detection on arbitrary code. Our evaluation of PARSNIP on several PARSEC benchmarks shows that performance overheads range from negligible to 2.6x, with an average overhead of just 1.5x. Moreover, Parsnip outperforms the state-of-the-art Radish hardware race detector by 4.6x