mirror of
https://github.com/achlipala/frap.git
synced 2024-11-10 00:07:51 +00:00
CompilerCorrectness chapter: simulation with multiple matching steps
This commit is contained in:
parent
6c1af44f95
commit
cefe711466
1 changed files with 43 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -2507,6 +2507,49 @@ Our bad counterexample fails to satisfy the conditions, because eventually the s
|
|||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Simulations That Allow Taking Multiple Matching Steps}
|
||||
|
||||
\newcommand{\flatten}[1]{\mathsf{flatten}(#1)}
|
||||
\newcommand{\smallstepcls}[3]{#1 \stackrel{#2}{\to_\mathsf{c}}^* #3}
|
||||
|
||||
Consider our final example compiler phase: flattening\index{flattening} expressions into sequences of assignments to temporaries, using only noncompound subexpressions, where the arguments to every binary operator are variables or constants.
|
||||
Now a single step at the source level must be matched by many steps at the target level.
|
||||
We write $\flatten{c}$ for the flattening of command $c$.
|
||||
How can we prove that this transformation is correct?
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}[Simulation relation with multiple matching steps]
|
||||
We say that a binary relation $R$ over states of our object language is a \emph{simulation relation with multiple matching steps} iff:
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item Whenever $(v_1, \skipe) \; R \; (v_2, c_2)$, it follows that $c_2 = \skipe$.
|
||||
\item Whenever $s_1 \; R \; s_2$ and $\smallstepcl{s_1}{\ell}{s'_1}$, there exists $s'_2$ such that $\smallstepcls{s_2}{\ell}{s'_2}$ and $s'_1 \; R \; s'_2$.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
We write $\smallstepcls{s}{\ell}{s'}$ to indicate that $s$ steps to $s'$ via zero or more silent steps and then one step with label $\ell$ (which might also be silent).
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{theorem}
|
||||
If there exists a simulation with multiple matching steps $R$ such that $s_1 \; R \; s_2$, then $\treq{s_1}{s_2}$.
|
||||
\end{theorem}
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
The backward direction is the interesting part of this proof.
|
||||
The key lemma proceeds by strong induction on the number of steps needed to generate the trace on the right.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{theorem}
|
||||
For any $v$ and $c$ where $c$ doesn't use any names that are reserved for temporaries, $\treq{(v, c)}{(v, \flatten{c})}$.
|
||||
\end{theorem}
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
By a simulation argument (with multiple matching steps) using this relation:
|
||||
\begin{eqnarray*}
|
||||
(v_1, c_1) \; R \; (v_2, c_2) &=& \textrm{$c_1$ doesn't use any names reserved for temporaries} \\
|
||||
&& \land \; v_1 \cong v_2 \land c_2 = \flatten{c_1}
|
||||
\end{eqnarray*}
|
||||
The heart of this relation is a subrelation $\cong$ over valuations, capturing when they agree on all variables that are not reserved for temporaries, since the flattened program will feel free to scribble all over the temporaries.
|
||||
The details of $\cong$ are especially important to the key lemma, showing that flattening of expressions is sound, both taking in a $\cong$ premise and drawing a related $\cong$ conclusion.
|
||||
The overall proof is not short, with quite a few lemmas, found in the Coq code.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
||||
\chapter{Lambda Calculus and Simple Type Safety}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue