Stronger Validity Criteria for Encoding Synchrony

Glabbeek, Rob van; Goltz, Ursula; Lippert, Christopher; Mennicke, Stephan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31175-9_11

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Validity of translations between process calculi is discussed in [4,3] where five criteria for valid translations resp. encodings are proposed: compositionality, name invariance, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, and success sensitiveness.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Translations from Synchronous Communication to Synchronizing Locks

Schmidt-Schauß

Sabel

2021

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to understand the relative expressive power of larger concurrent programming languages, we analyze translations of small process calculi which model the communication and synchronization of concurrent processes. The source language SYNCSIMPLE is a minimalistic model for message passing concurrency while the target language LOCKSIMPLE is a minimalistic model for shared memory concurrency. The former is a calculus with synchronous communication of processes, while the latter has synchronizing mutable locations -called locks -that behave similarly to binary semaphores. The criteria for correctness of translations is that they preserve and reflect maytermination and must-termination of the processes. We show that there is no correct compositional translation from SYNCSIMPLE to LOCKSIMPLE that uses one or two locks, independent from the initialisation of the locks. We also show that there is a correct translation that uses three locks. Also variants of the locks are taken into account with different blocking behavior.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Translations from Synchronous Communication to Synchronizing Locks

Schmidt-Schauß

Sabel

2021

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are five criteria for valid translations resp. encodings proposed and discussed in [11,9], which mainly restrict the translations w.r.t. language syntax and reduction semantics of the source and target language, called: compositionality, name invariance, operational correspondence, divergence reflection and success sensitiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We provide a translation τ 0 which uses a private MVar per channel and per communication to ensure that no other process can interfere with the interaction. A similar idea was used in [12,3] for keeping channel names private in a different scenario (see [10,9] for recent treatments of these encodings). We prove that the translation τ 0 is correct.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The task of finding such translations is reminiscent of the channel-encoding used in [20], but, however, there an asynchronous channel is implemented while we look for synchronous communication.We provide a translation τ 0 which uses a private MVar per channel and per communication to ensure that no other process can interfere with the interaction. A similar idea was used in [12,3] for keeping channel names private in a different scenario (see [10,9] for recent treatments of these encodings). We prove that the translation τ 0 is correct.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correctly Implementing Synchronous Message Passing in the Pi-Calculus By Concurrent Haskell's MVars

Schmidt-Schauß

Sabel

2020

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of concurrent programming languages and correctness of program transformations in concurrency are the focus of this research. As criterion we use contextual semantics adapted to concurrency, where may-as well as should-convergence are observed. We investigate the relation between the synchronous pi-calculus and a core language of Concurrent Haskell (CH). The contextual semantics is on the one hand forgiving with respect to the details of the operational semantics, and on the other hand implies strong requirements for the interplay between the processes after translation. Our result is that CH embraces the synchronous pi-calculus. Our main task is to find and prove correctness of encodings of pi-calculus channels by CH's concurrency primitives, which are MVars. They behave like (blocking) 1-place buffers modelling the shared-memory. The first developed translation uses an extra private MVar for every communication. We also automatically generate and check potentially correct translations that reuse the MVars where one MVar contains the message and two additional MVars for synchronization are used to model the synchronized communication of a single channel in the pi-calculus. Our automated experimental results lead to the conjecture that one additional MVar is insufficient.

show abstract

Stronger Validity Criteria for Encoding Synchrony

Cited by 2 publications

References 39 publications

Minimal Translations from Synchronous Communication to Synchronizing Locks

Minimal Translations from Synchronous Communication to Synchronizing Locks

Correctly Implementing Synchronous Message Passing in the Pi-Calculus By Concurrent Haskell's MVars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About