Results 1  10
of
16
Formal verification of a realistic compiler
 Communications of the ACM
"... This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 71 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming 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 critical software and its formal verification: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well. 1.
Proving Theorems about LISP Functions
, 1975
"... Program verification is the idea that properties of programs can be precisely stated and proved in the mathematical sense. In this paper, some simple heuristics combining evaluation and mathematical induction are described, which the authors have implemented in a program that automatically proves a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Program verification is the idea that properties of programs can be precisely stated and proved in the mathematical sense. In this paper, some simple heuristics combining evaluation and mathematical induction are described, which the authors have implemented in a program that automatically proves a wide variety of theorems about recursive LISP functions. The method the program uses to generate induction formulas is described at length. The theorems proved by the program include that REVERSE is its own inverse and that a particular SORT program is correct. A list of theorems proved by the program is given. key words and phrases: LISP, automatic theoremproving, structural induction, program verification cr categories: 3.64, 4.22, 5.21 1 Introduction We are concerned with proving theorems in a firstorder theory of lists, akin to the elementary theory of numbers. We use a subset of LISP as our language because recursive list processing functions are easy to write in LISP and because ...
Mechanizing structural induction
, 1976
"... A theorem proving system has been programmed for automating mildly complex proofs by structural induction. One purpose was to prove properties of simple functional programs without loops or assignments. One can see the formal system as a generalization of number theory: the formal language is typed ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A theorem proving system has been programmed for automating mildly complex proofs by structural induction. One purpose was to prove properties of simple functional programs without loops or assignments. One can see the formal system as a generalization of number theory: the formal language is typed and the induction rule is valid for all types. Proofs are generated by working backward from the goal. The induction strategy splits into two parts: (1) the selection of induction variables, which is claimed to be linked to the useful generalization of terms to variables, and (2) the generation of induction subgoals, in particular, the selection and specialization of hypotheses. Other strategies include a fast simplification algorithm. The prover can cope with situations as complex as the definition and correctness proof of a simple compiling algorithm for expressions. Descriptive Terms Program proving, theorem proving, data type, structural induction, generalization, simplification.
A mechanically verified code generator
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1989
"... in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of Computational ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of Computational
A Trustworthy Proof Checker
 IN ILIANO CERVESATO, EDITOR, WORKSHOP ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF COMPUTER SECURITY
, 2002
"... ProofCarrying Code (PCC) and other applications in computer security require machinecheckable proofs of properties of machinelanguage programs. The main advantage of the PCC approach is that the amount of code that must be explicitly trusted is very small: it consists of the logic in which predic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ProofCarrying Code (PCC) and other applications in computer security require machinecheckable proofs of properties of machinelanguage programs. The main advantage of the PCC approach is that the amount of code that must be explicitly trusted is very small: it consists of the logic in which predicates and proofs are expressed, the safety predicate, and the proof checker. We have built a minimal proof checker, and we explain its design principles, and the representation issues of the logic, safety predicate, and safety proofs. We show that the trusted computing base (TCB) in such a system can indeed be very small. In our current system the TCB is less than 2,700 lines of code (an order of magnitude smaller even than other PCC systems) which adds to our confidence of its correctness.
Formal Verification of a Java Compiler in Isabelle
, 2002
"... This paper reports on the formal proof of correctness of a compiler from a substantial subset of Java source language to Java bytecode in the proof environment Isabelle. This work is based on extensive previous formalizations of Java, which comprise all relevant features of objectorientation. W ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper reports on the formal proof of correctness of a compiler from a substantial subset of Java source language to Java bytecode in the proof environment Isabelle. This work is based on extensive previous formalizations of Java, which comprise all relevant features of objectorientation. We place particular emphasis on describing the e#ects of design decisions in these formalizations on the compiler correctness proof.
A Verified Code Generator For A Subset Of Gypsy
, 1988
"... A VERIFIED CODE GENERATOR FOR A SUBSET OF GYPSY Publication No. William David Young, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 1988 Supervising Professors: Robert S. Boyer, J Strother Moore This report describes the specification and mechanical proof of a code generator for a subset of Gypsy 2.05 cal ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A VERIFIED CODE GENERATOR FOR A SUBSET OF GYPSY Publication No. William David Young, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 1988 Supervising Professors: Robert S. Boyer, J Strother Moore This report describes the specification and mechanical proof of a code generator for a subset of Gypsy 2.05 called MicroGypsy. MicroGypsy is a highlevel language containing many of the Gypsy control structures, simple data types and arrays, and predefined and userdefined procedure definitions including recursive procedure definitions. The language is formally specified by a recognizer and interpreter written as functions in the BoyerMoore logic. The target language for the MicroGypsy code generator is the Piton highlevel assembly language verified by J Moore to be correctly implemented on the FM8502 hardware. The semantics of Piton is specified by another interpreter written in the logic. A BoyerMoore function maps a MicroGypsy state containing program and data structures into an initial Pit...
A Verified Implementation of an Applicative Language with Dynamic Storage Allocation
, 1993
"... A compiler for a subset of the Nqthm logic and a mechanically checked proof of its correctness is described. The Nqthm logic defines an applicative programming language very similar to McCarthy's pure Lisp[20]. The compiler compiles programs in the Nqthm logic into the Piton assembly level language ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A compiler for a subset of the Nqthm logic and a mechanically checked proof of its correctness is described. The Nqthm logic defines an applicative programming language very similar to McCarthy's pure Lisp[20]. The compiler compiles programs in the Nqthm logic into the Piton assembly level language [23]. The correctness of the compiler is proven by showing that the result of executing the Piton code is the same as produced by the Nqthm interpreter V&C$. The Nqthm logic defines several different abstract data types, or shells, as they are called in Nqthm. The user can also define additional shells. The definition of a shell includes the definition of a constructor function that returns new objects with the type of that shell. These objects can become garbage, so the runtime system of the compiler includes a garbage collector. The proof of the correctness of the compiler has not been entirely mechanically checked. A plan for completing the proof is described.
MultiLevel MetaReasoning with Higher Order Abstract Syntax
 Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, volume 2620 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2003
"... Abstract. Combining Higher Order Abstract Syntax (HOAS) and (co)induction is well known to be problematic. In previous work [1] we have described the implementation of a tool called Hybrid, within Isabelle HOL, which allows object logics to be represented using HOAS, and reasoned about using tactica ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Combining Higher Order Abstract Syntax (HOAS) and (co)induction is well known to be problematic. In previous work [1] we have described the implementation of a tool called Hybrid, within Isabelle HOL, which allows object logics to be represented using HOAS, and reasoned about using tactical theorem proving and principles of (co)induction. Moreover, it is definitional, which guarantees consistency within a classical type theory. In this paper we describe how to use it in a multilevel reasoning fashion, similar in spirit to other metalogics such F Oλ ∆IN and Twelf. By explicitly referencing provability, we solve the problem of reasoning by (co)induction in presence of nonstratifiable hypothetical judgments, which allow very elegant and succinct specifications. We demonstrate the method by formally verifying the correctness of a compiler for (a fragment) of MiniML, following [10]. To further exhibit the flexibility of our system, we modify the target language with a notion of nonwellfounded closure, inspired by Milner & Tofte [19] and formally verify via coinduction a subject reduction theorem for this modified language. 1