From Natural Semantics to Abstract Machines

Ager, Mads Sig

doi:10.1007/11506676_16

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…an inductive big-step operational semantics; their proposal is centered on the idea of tracing the intermediate steps of a program execution with a partial derivation-search algorithm which deterministically computes the value and the proof tree of evaluation judgments. Similar approaches, although their corresponding semantics are not deterministic, are those of Ager [1] and Stoughton [16].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coinductive big-step operational semantics for type soundness of Java-like languages

Ancona

2011

Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-Like Programs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We define a coinductive semantics for a simple Java-like language by simply interpreting coinductively the rules of a standard big-step operational semantics.We prove that such a semantics is sound w.r.t. the usual small-step operational semantics, and then prove soundness of a conventional nominal type system w.r.t. the coinductive semantics. From these two results, soundness of the type system w.r.t. the small-step semantics can be easily deduced.This new proposed approach not only opens up new possibilities for proving type soundness, but also provides useful insights on the connection between coinductive big-step operational semantics and type systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coinductive big-step operational semantics for type soundness of Java-like languages

Ancona

2011

Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-Like Programs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differently from all the previously cited papers which consider specific examples, the work [2] shares with us the aim of providing a generic construction to model non-termination, basing on an arbitrary big-step semantics. Ager considers a class of big-step semantics identified by a specific shape of rules, and defines, in a small-step style, a proof-search algorithm which follows the big-step rules; in this way, converging, diverging and stuck computations are distinguished.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Keypoint (2)'s three sufficient conditions are local preservation, ∃-progress, and ∀-progress. For proving the result that the three conditions actually ensure soundness, the setting up of the extended semantics from the given one is necessary, since otherwise, as said above, we could not even express the property.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soundness Conditions for Big-Step Semantics

Dagnino

Bono

Zucca

et al. 2020

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a general proof technique to show that a predicate is sound, that is, prevents stuck computation, with respect to a big-step semantics. This result may look surprising, since in big-step semantics there is no difference between non-terminating and stuck computations, hence soundness cannot even be expressed. The key idea is to define constructions yielding an extended version of a given arbitrary big-step semantics, where the difference is made explicit. The extended semantics are exploited in the meta-theory, notably they are necessary to show that the proof technique works. However, they remain transparent when using the proof technique, since it consists in checking three conditions on the original rules only, as we illustrate by several examples.

show abstract

“…In [2], the author explores an approach to constructing abstract machines from big-step (natural) specifications. It applies to a class of big-step specifications called L-attributed big-step semantics, which allows for sufficiently interesting languages.…”

Section: )) − → Exc(3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

One Step at a Time

Vesely

Fisher

2019

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Big-step and small-step are two popular flavors of operational semantics. Big-step is often seen as a more natural transcription of informal descriptions, as well as being more convenient for some applications such as interpreter generation or optimization verification. Smallstep allows reasoning about non-terminating computations, concurrency and interactions. It is also generally preferred for reasoning about type systems. Instead of having to manually specify equivalent semantics in both styles for different applications, it would be useful to choose one and derive the other in a systematic or, preferably, automatic way.Transformations of small-step semantics into big-step have been investigated in various forms by Danvy and others. However, it appears that a corresponding transformation from big-step to small-step semantics has not had the same attention. We present a fully automated transformation that maps big-step evaluators written in direct style to their small-step counterparts. Many of the steps in the transformation, which include CPS-conversion, defunctionalisation, and various continuation manipulations, mirror those used by Danvy and his co-authors. For many standard languages, including those with either call-by-value or call-by-need and those with state, the transformation produces small-step semantics that are close in style to handwritten ones. We evaluate the applicability and correctness of the approach on 20 languages with a range of features.

show abstract

From Natural Semantics to Abstract Machines

Cited by 14 publications

References 14 publications

Coinductive big-step operational semantics for type soundness of Java-like languages

Coinductive big-step operational semantics for type soundness of Java-like languages

Soundness Conditions for Big-Step Semantics

One Step at a Time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About