The first of these implications follows from (14), the second is a matter of notation. The third implication is an instance of (15), and the next comes from purity. The sixth implication in the derivation follows from (60), and the last is by (54). This s

The first of these implications follows from (14), the second is a matter of notation. The third implication is an instance of (15), and the next comes from purity. The sixth implication in the derivation follows from (60), and the last is by (54). This s (0)

by F

Venue:

free − 8) ↦→ t1, t2) ∗ (scan ↦→ free − 8

Add To MetaCart

Results 1 - 1 of 1

Local Reasoning about a Copying Garbage Collector

by Lars Birkedal, Noah Torp-smith, John C. Reynolds - In 31st ACM POPL , 2004

"... We present a programming language, model, and logic appropriate for implementing and reasoning about a memory management system. We then state what is meant by correctness of a copying garbage collector, and employ a variant of the novel separation logics [18, 23] to formally specify partial correct ..."

Abstract - Cited by 58 (7 self) - Add to MetaCart

We present a programming language, model, and logic appropriate for implementing and reasoning about a memory management system. We then state what is meant by correctness of a copying garbage collector, and employ a variant of the novel separation logics [18, 23] to formally specify partial correctness of Cheney's copying garbage collector [8]. Finally, we prove that our implementation of Cheney's algorithm meets its specification, using the logic we have given, and auxiliary variables [19].

The first of these implications follows from (14), the second is a matter of notation. The third implication is an instance of (15), and the next comes from purity. The sixth implication in the derivation follows from (60), and the last is by (54). This s (0)

Tools

Local Reasoning about a Copying Garbage Collector