Fab ous Interoperability for ML and a Linear Language

Scherer, Gabriel; New, Max S.; Rioux, Nicholas; Ahmed, Amal

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89366-2_8

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another line of work based is multi-language semantics [14][15][16][17] where a language combining all source, intermediate and target language is used to formalize the semantics and compiler correctness is stated using contextual equivalence or logical relations.…”

Section: Modular Verification Of Compilers For Higher-order Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bottom-Up Approach to a Unified Semantic Interface for Verified Compositional Compilation

Zhang¹,

Wang²,

Koenig³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verified compositional compilation (VCC) is a notion of modular verification of compilers that supports compilation of heterogeneous programs. The key to achieve VCC is to design a semantic interface that enables composition of correctness theorems for compiling individual modules. Most of the existing techniques for VCC fix a semantic interface from the very beginning and force it down to every single compiler pass. This requires significant changes to the existing framework and makes it difficult to understand the relationship between conditions enforced by the semantic interface and the actual requirements of compiler passes. A different approach is to design appropriate semantic interfaces for individual compiler passes and combine them into a unified interface which faithfully reflects the requirements of underlying compiler passes. However, this requires vertically composable simulation relations, which were traditionally considered very difficult to construct even with extensive changes to compiler verification frameworks.We propose a solution to construction of unified semantic interfaces for VCC with a bottom-up approach. Our starting point is CompCertO, an extension of CompCert-the state-of-the-art verified compiler-that supports VCC but lacks a unified interface. We discover that a CompCert Kripke Logical Relation (CKLR) in CompCertO provides a uniform notion of memory protection for evolving memory states across modules and is transitively composable. Based on this uniform and composable CKLR, we then merge the simulation relations for all the compiler pass in CompCertO (except for three value analysis passes) into a unified interface. We demonstrate the conciseness and effectiveness of this unified interface by applying it to verify the compositional compilation of a non-trivial heterogeneous program with mutual recursion.

show abstract

Section: Modular Verification Of Compilers For Higher-order Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bottom-Up Approach to a Unified Semantic Interface for Verified Compositional Compilation

Zhang¹,

Wang²,

Koenig³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Matthews and Findler [32] studied the question of the interoperability of source languages, developing the idea of a syntactic multi-language with boundary terms (c.f., contracts [18,19]) that mediate between the two languages. They focused on a static language interacting with a dynamic one, but similar techniques have been applied widely (e.g., object-oriented [20,21], affine and unrestricted [48], simple and dependently typed [40], functional language and assembly [41], linear and unrestricted [43]) and used to prove compiler properties (e.g., correctness [42], full abstraction [2,36]). More recently, there has been an effort understand this construction from a denotational [15] and categorical [14] perspective.…”

Section: Related Work and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One can then prove that the entire multi-language type system is sound by proving type safety for the multi-language, which includes the typing rules of both the embedded languages and the boundaries. This multi-language framework has inspired a significant amount of work on interoperability: between simple and dependently typed languages [40], between languages with unrestricted and substructural types [43,48], between a high-level functional language and assembly [41], and between source and target languages of compilers [2,36,42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Soundness for Language Interoperability

Patterson¹,

Noble²,

Wagner³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Programs are rarely implemented in a single language, and thus questions of type soundness should address not only the semantics of a single language, but how it interacts with others. Even between type-safe languages, disparate features can frustrate interoperability, as invariants from one language can easily be violated in the other. In their seminal 2007 paper, Matthews and Findler [32] proposed a multilanguage construction that augments the interoperating languages with a pair of boundaries that allow code from one language to be embedded in the other. While this technique has been widely applied, their syntactic source-level interoperability doesn't reflect practical implementations, where the behavior of interaction is only defined after compilation to a common target, and any safety must be ensured by target invariants or inserted target-level "glue code. "In this paper, we present a novel framework for the design and verification of sound language interoperability that follows an interoperation-after-compilation strategy. Language designers specify what data can be converted between types of the two languages via a convertibility relation ∼ (" is convertible to ") and specify target-level glue code implementing the conversions. Then, by giving a semantic model of source-language types as sets of target-language terms, we can establish not only the meaning of our source types, but also soundness of conversions: i.e., whenever ∼ , the corresponding pair of conversions (glue code) convert target terms that behave like to target terms that behave like , and vice versa. With this, we can prove semantic type soundness for the entire system. We illustrate our framework via a series of case studies that demonstrate how our semantic interoperation-after-compilation approach allows us both to account for complex differences in language semantics and make efficiency trade-offs based on particularities of compilers or targets.

show abstract

“…Matthews and Findler provide a seminal work of this field [10]. Recent works in multi-language semantics are [15,16,19]. All these works apply to two languages selected beforehand, and do not handle arbitrary languages specified by users.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lang-n-Send: Processes That Send Languages

Cimini

2022

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present LANG-N-SEND, a π-calculus that is equipped with language definitions. Processes can define languages in operational semantics, and use them to execute programs. Furthermore, processes can send and receive pieces of operational semantics through channels.We present a reduction semantics for LANG-N-SEND, and we offer examples that demonstrate some of the scenarios that LANG-N-SEND captures.• A client that lets a server decide whether its language is synchronous or asynchronous by receiving the semantics of the output operator from the server.

show abstract

Fab ous Interoperability for ML and a Linear Language

Cited by 9 publications

References 29 publications

A Bottom-Up Approach to a Unified Semantic Interface for Verified Compositional Compilation

A Bottom-Up Approach to a Unified Semantic Interface for Verified Compositional Compilation

Semantic Soundness for Language Interoperability

Lang-n-Send: Processes That Send Languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About