Mechanized semantics

The goal of this lecture is to show how modern theorem provers---in this case, the Coq proof assistant---can be used to mechanize the specification of programming languages and their semantics, and to reason over individual programs and over generic program transformations, as typically found in compilers. The topics covered include: operational semantics (small-step, big-step, definitional interpreters); a simple form of denotational semantics; axiomatic semantics and Hoare logic; generation of verification conditions, with application to program proof; compilation to virtual machine code and its proof of correctness; an example of an optimizing program transformation (dead code elimination) and its proof of correctness

Functional Big-step Semantics

When doing an interactive proof about a piece of software, it is important that the underlying programming language’s semantics does not make the proof unnecessarily difficult or unwieldy. Both smallstep and big-step semantics are commonly used, and the latter is typically given by an inductively defined relation. In this paper, we consider an alternative: using a recursive function akin to an interpreter for the language. The advantages include a better induction theorem, less duplication, accessibility to ordinary functional programmers, and the ease of doing symbolic simulation in proofs via rewriting. We believe that this style of semantics is well suited for compiler verification, including proofs of divergence preservation. We do not claim the invention of this style of semantics: our contribution here is to clarify its value, and to explain how it supports several language features that might appear to require a relational or small-step approach. We illustrate the technique on a simple imperative language with C-like for-loops and a break statement, and compare it to a variety of other approaches. We also provide ML and lambda-calculus based examples to illustrate its generality

A Verified Certificate Checker for Finite-Precision Error Bounds in Coq and HOL4

Being able to soundly estimate roundoff errors of finite-precision computations is important for many applications in embedded systems and scientific computing. Due to the discrepancy between continuous reals and discrete finite-precision values, automated static analysis tools are highly valuable to estimate roundoff errors. The results, however, are only as correct as the implementations of the static analysis tools. This paper presents a formally verified and modular tool which fully automatically checks the correctness of finite-precision roundoff error bounds encoded in a certificate. We present implementations of certificate generation and checking for both Coq and HOL4 and evaluate it on a number of examples from the literature. The experiments use both in-logic evaluation of Coq and HOL4, and execution of extracted code outside of the logics: we benchmark Coq extracted unverified OCaml code and a CakeML-generated verified binary

A formally verified compiler back-end

This article describes the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of a compiler back-end from Cminor (a simple imperative intermediate language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a verified compiler is useful in the context of formal methods applied to the certification of critical software: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well

Gradual Certified Programming in Coq

Expressive static typing disciplines are a powerful way to achieve high-quality software. However, the adoption cost of such techniques should not be under-estimated. Just like gradual typing allows for a smooth transition from dynamically-typed to statically-typed programs, it seems desirable to support a gradual path to certified programming. We explore gradual certified programming in Coq, providing the possibility to postpone the proofs of selected properties, and to check "at runtime" whether the properties actually hold. Casts can be integrated with the implicit coercion mechanism of Coq to support implicit cast insertion a la gradual typing. Additionally, when extracting Coq functions to mainstream languages, our encoding of casts supports lifting assumed properties into runtime checks. Much to our surprise, it is not necessary to extend Coq in any way to support gradual certified programming. A simple mix of type classes and axioms makes it possible to bring gradual certified programming to Coq in a straightforward manner.Comment: DLS'15 final version, Proceedings of the ACM Dynamic Languages Symposium (DLS 2015