Proof-Theoretic Methods for Analysis of Functional Programs

We investigate how, in a natural deduction setting, we can specify concisely a wide variety of tasks that manipulate programs as data objects. This study will provide us with a better understanding of various kinds of manipulations of programs and also an operational understanding of numerous features and properties of a rich functional programming language. We present a technique, inspired by structural operational semantics and natural semantics, for specifying properties of, or operations on, programs. Specifications of this sort are presented as sets of inference rules and are encoded as clauses in a higher-order, intuitionistic meta-logic. Program properties are then proved by constructing proofs in this meta-logic. We argue the following points regarding these specifications and their proofs: (i) the specifications are clear and concise and they provide intuitive descriptions of the properties being described; (ii) a wide variety of program analysis tools can be specified in a single unified framework, and thus we can investigate and understand the relationship between various tools; (iii) proof theory provides a well-established and formal setting in which to examine meta-theoretic properties of these specifications; and (iv) the meta-logic we use can be implemented naturally in an extended logic programming language and thus we can produce experimental implementations of the specifications. We expect that our efforts will provide new perspectives and insights for many program manipulation tasks

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

On the safety of Nöcker's strictness analysis

This paper proves correctness of Nocker s method of strictness analysis, implemented for Clean, which is an e ective way for strictness analysis in lazy functional languages based on their operational semantics. We improve upon the work of Clark, Hankin and Hunt, which addresses correctness of the abstract reduction rules. Our method also addresses the cycle detection rules, which are the main strength of Nocker s strictness analysis. We reformulate Nocker s strictness analysis algorithm in a higherorder lambda-calculus with case, constructors, letrec, and a nondeterministic choice operator used as a union operator. Furthermore, the calculus is expressive enough to represent abstract constants like Top or Inf. The operational semantics is a small-step semantics and equality of expressions is defined by a contextual semantics that observes termination of expressions. The correctness of several reductions is proved using a context lemma and complete sets of forking and commuting diagrams. The proof is based mainly on an exact analysis of the lengths of normal order reductions. However, there remains a small gap: Currently, the proof for correctness of strictness analysis requires the conjecture that our behavioral preorder is contained in the contextual preorder. The proof is valid without referring to the conjecture, if no abstract constants are used in the analysis

Proving the genericity lemma by leftmost reduction is simple

The Genericity Lemma is one of the most important motivations to take in the untyped lambda calculus the notion of solvability as a formal representation of the informal notion of undefinedness. We generalise solvability towards typed lambda calculi, and we call this generalisation: usability. We then prove the Genericity Lemma for un-usable terms. The technique of the proof is based on leftmost reduction, which strongly simplifies the standard proof

Realising nondeterministic I/O in the Glasgow Haskell Compiler

In this paper we demonstrate how to relate the semantics given by the nondeterministic call-by-need calculus FUNDIO [SS03] to Haskell. After introducing new correct program transformations for FUNDIO, we translate the core language used in the Glasgow Haskell Compiler into the FUNDIO language, where the IO construct of FUNDIO corresponds to direct-call IO-actions in Haskell. We sketch the investigations of [Sab03b] where a lot of program transformations performed by the compiler have been shown to be correct w.r.t. the FUNDIO semantics. This enabled us to achieve a FUNDIO-compatible Haskell-compiler, by turning o not yet investigated transformations and the small set of incompatible transformations. With this compiler, Haskell programs which use the extension unsafePerformIO in arbitrary contexts, can be compiled in a "safe" manner