Loading in 5 sec....

Translation Validation via Linear Recursion SchemesPowerPoint Presentation

Translation Validation via Linear Recursion Schemes

- 101 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Translation Validation via Linear Recursion Schemes

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Translation Validation via Linear Recursion Schemes

Master Seminar

Tobias Tebbi

- Goal Verified Compiler
- MethodImplement Validator that checks if input and output of compiler pass are equivalent.
- NeedsDecidable sufficient criterion for program equivalence

Control Flow Graph

Continuation Passing Style

if

if

if

- If trees equal, then programs equivalent.
- This is decidable! [Sabelfeld2000]
- Many optimizations do not change the tree.
- It does not matter
- which arguments/variables/registers are used.
- when values are computed.

- But the branching structure does matter, e.g. which test is done first.

- Restriction with polynomial equivalence check

interpreted procedures

linear: nesting forbidden

uninterpretedfunctions

e.g. +, <, if-then-else, return, …

- Just oneuninterpretedfunction/operator
- Simple terms
- Terms
- Onlyproceduresofthe form
- Thus
- All proceduresproduce infinite trees
- Onlybinarytreeswhere all innernodesarelabelledwithandleavesarelabelledwith variables orconstants
- Every subtree is described by a term or

- Binary infinite trees equal All subtrees at same position and with infinite parent-subtrees are both infinite or equal

- Binary infinite trees equal All subtrees at same position and with infinite parent-subtrees are both infinite or equal
- To check equivalenceofand, we generate all such pairs of subtrees with the inductively defined relation :
- If
with and ,

then and

- If
- is consistent iffor all , both and are procedure calls or .
- iff is consistent.

- A substitution is a function from variables to simple terms.
- S is the term where every occurrence of a variable is replaced by .
- The instantiation pre-order on terms:
And on pairs of terms:

A

- If
- with and ,
- then and

- If there is a consistent superset of , then .
- We want to construct a finite representation of such a set to serve as an equivalence proof.
- Consider a finite, consistent relation such that
- for some
- If
with and ,

then for , is a simple termor for some

Lemma:

- The constraint on is decidable. Thus we have a method to prove equivalence.

- If
- with and ,
- then and

- is unifier of and if
- We write for
Lemma:

- Thus, is consistent iff is consistent iff
- for all simple pairs ,
- all other pairs consist of procedure calls only

- This is a classical first-order unification problem
- Thus we have most general unifiers (MGUs) :
For every other unifier , we have

- for some
- If with and , then for , is a simple termor for some

- Consider an MGU of and . Then iffwhere
- Then is a finite equivalence proof for all equivalent terms and .
- Thus equivalence of terms is semi-decidable.

- Equivalence of terms is semi-decidable.
- Non-equivalence is semi-decidable too: the trees must differ at some finite level.
- Thus equivalence is decidable.
- In the next talks, I will present an efficient procedure to decide equivalence by reducing the problem to a fragment of semi-unification.

Fokkink, W. Unification for infinite sets of equations between finite terms.Information processing letters 62, 4 (1997), 183–188.

Sabelfeld, V. The tree equivalence of linear recursion schemes. Theoretical Computer Science 238, 1–2 (2000), 1–29.