Abstract
We study two closely related problems: (a) showing that a program transformation is correct and (b) propagating an invariant through a program transformation. The second problem is motivated by an application which utilizes program invariants to improve the quality of compiler optimizations. We show that both problems can be addressed by augmenting a transformation with an auxiliary witness generation procedure. For every application of the transformation, the witness generator constructs a relation which guarantees the correctness of that instance. We show that stuttering simulation is a sound and complete witness format. Completeness means that, under mild conditions, every correct transformation induces a stuttering simulation witness which is strong enough to prove that the transformation is correct. A witness is self-contained, in that its correctness is independent of the optimization procedure which generates it. Any invariant of a source program can be turned into an invariant of the target of a transformation by suitably composing it with its witness. Stuttering simulations readily compose, forming a single witness for a sequence of transformations. Witness generation is simpler than a formal proof of correctness, and it is comprehensive, unlike the heuristics used for translation validation. We define witnesses for a number of standard compiler optimizations; this exercise shows that witness generators can be implemented quite easily.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The existence of refinement mappings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 82(2), 253–284 (1991)
Allen, R., Kennedy, K.: Optimizing Compilers for Modern Architectures. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)
Barthe, G., Crespo, J.M., Kunz, C.: Beyond 2-safety: Asymmetric product programs for relational program verification. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7734, pp. 29–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Barthe, G., Kunz, C.: An abstract model of certificate translation. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33(4), 13 (2011)
Benton, N.: Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations. In: POPL, pp. 14–25 (2004)
Browne, M.C., Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O.: Reasoning about networks with many identical finite state processes. Inf. Comput. 81(1), 13–31 (1989)
Dijkstra, E.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy, and formal derivation of programs. CACMÂ 18(8) (1975)
Dijkstra, E., Scholten, C.: Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer (1990)
Lattner, C., Adve, V.S.: LLVM: A compilation framework for lifelong program analysis & transformation. In: CGO, pp. 75–88 (2004), Webpage at llvm.org
Leroy, X.: Formal certification of a compiler back-end or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: POPL, pp. 42–54. ACM (2006)
Leroy, X.: Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52(7), 107–115 (2009)
Manna, Z., McCarthy, J.: Properties of programs and partial function logic. Journal of Machine Intelligence 5 (1970)
Manolios, P.: Mechanical Verification of Reactive Systems. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin (2001)
Manolios, P.: A compositional theory of refinement for branching time. In: Geist, D., Tronci, E. (eds.) CHARME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2860, pp. 304–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Muchnick, S.: Advanced Compiler Design & Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)
Namjoshi, K.S.: A simple characterization of stuttering bisimulation. In: Ramesh, S., Sivakumar, G. (eds.) FST TCS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1346, pp. 284–296. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Namjoshi, K.S.: Lifting temporal proofs through abstractions. In: Zuck, L.D., Attie, P.C., Cortesi, A., Mukhopadhyay, S. (eds.) VMCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2575, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Necula, G.: Translation validation of an optimizing compiler. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles of Programming Languages Design and Implementation, PLDI 2000, pp. 83–95 (2000)
Necula, G.C., Lee, P.: Safe kernel extensions without run-time checking. In: OSDI, pp. 229–243. ACM (1996)
Pnueli, A., Siegel, M., Shtrichman, O.: The code validation tool (CVT)- automatic verification of a compilation process. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2(2), 192–201 (1998)
Rinard, M., Marinov, D.: Credible compilation with pointers. In: Proceedings of the Run-Time Result Verification Workshop (July 2000)
Tristan, J.-B., Govereau, P., Morrisett, G.: Evaluating value-graph translation validation for LLVM. In: PLDI, pp. 295–305 (2011)
Zuck, L.D., Pnueli, A., Goldberg, B.: Voc: A methodology for the translation validation of optimizing compilers. J. UCS 9(3), 223–247 (2003)
Zuck, L.D., Pnueli, A., Goldberg, B., Barrett, C.W., Fang, Y., Hu, Y.: Translation and run-time validation of loop transformations. Formal Methods in System Design 27(3), 335–360 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Namjoshi, K.S., Zuck, L.D. (2013). Witnessing Program Transformations. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7935. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38856-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38856-9_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38855-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38856-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)