2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24953-7_19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Contextual Equivalence Checker for IMJ*

Abstract: Abstract. We present CONEQCT: a contextual equivalence checking tool for terms of IMJ * , a fragment of Interface Middleweight Java for which the problem is decidable. Given two, possibly open (containing free identifiers), terms of the language, the contextual equivalence problem asks if the terms can be distinguished by any possible IMJ context. Although there has been a lot of prior work describing methods for constructing proofs of equivalence by hand, ours is the first tool to decide equivalences for a no… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, closed terms of first-order type become decidable in this setting [8], in contrast to unit → unit → unit for GRef. Finally, the approach presented herein was pursued for Interface Middleweight Java [21] and implemented in the equivalence checker Conneqct [20]. We note that, in presence of higher-order references and boolean storage, even termination is undecidable [26].…”
Section: Related and Further Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, closed terms of first-order type become decidable in this setting [8], in contrast to unit → unit → unit for GRef. Finally, the approach presented herein was pursued for Interface Middleweight Java [21] and implemented in the equivalence checker Conneqct [20]. We note that, in presence of higher-order references and boolean storage, even termination is undecidable [26].…”
Section: Related and Further Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, our current model sets the foundation for a sound, and complete for a large collection of types, proof methods for program equivalence. Similarly to our previous work on monomorphic languages [12,24], we aim to explore such methods and accompany them with automated, or semi-automated, equivalence checkers.…”
Section: Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This, along with the study of ML-specific restrictions like rank-1 polymorphism, would bring us closer to modelling a large fragment of ML, which can be seen as a broader goal behind this work.Moreover, our current model sets the foundation for a sound, and complete for a large collection of types, proof methods for program equivalence. Similarly to our previous work on monomorphic languages [12,24], we aim to explore such methods and accompany them with automated, or semi-automated, equivalence checkers.Remark 2. We have equipped our language with a construct performing reference equality tests.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although of foundational nature, the work is largely motivated by the pertinence of such machines to software model checking [6,2]. A particular such application is in game-semantics-based verification [19,16], whereby the semantics of programs is algorithmically given by means of variants of pushdown register systems, which in turn are used as models to be fed in procedures for checking program equivalence. We present several new results on the complexity of reachability testing, which altogether fill a gap in the theory of "context-free" languages over infinite alphabets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%