Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Certifying compilers using higher-order theorem provers as certificate checkers

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Correct software requires compilers to work correctly. Especially code generation can be an error prone task, since it potentially uses sophisticated algorithms to produce efficient code.

In this paper we present an approach to guarantee the correctness of compiler transformations with respect to a formal notion of correctness. We certify the results of each compilation run. With the help of a compiler generated certificate and a certificate checker, we verify the results of each compilation run automatically. Thereby we ensure the correctness of the compilation run without having to look at concrete compilation algorithms.

We use higher-order theorem provers to check the certificates and to formally define syntax, and semantics of the involved languages as well as a criterion under which we regard a compilation as correct. The use of higher-order theorem provers ensures a small and well understood trusted computing base. The task of efficient certificate checking is especially crucial for the acceptance of certifying compilation. We present methods to facilitate this task, most notably by using computational reflection: We present small—in an executable way specified—evaluators that solve certain properties appearing in our certificates and are used to speed up certain subtasks in the checking process.

We discuss an implemented prototype performing code generation. Using Coq and Isabelle/HOL as certificate checkers we highlight typical challenges and their solutions

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen SF, Constable RL, Howe DJ, Aitken W (1990) The semantics of reflected proofs. In: Logic in computer science (LICS ’90). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  2. Appel AW (2001) Foundational proof-carrying code. In: Logic in computer science (LICS ’01). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buth B, Buth K-H, Fränzle M, von Karger B, Lakhnech Y, Langmaack H, Müller-Olm M (1992) Provably correct compiler development and implementation. In: Compiler construction (CC ’92). LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barrett C, Fang Y, Goldberg B, Hu Y, Pnueli A, Zuck L (2005) TVOC: a translation validator for optimizing compilers. In: Computer aided verification (CAV ’05). LNCS. vol 3576. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blech JO, Grégoire B (2008) Certifying code generation with coq. In: Compiler optimization meets compiler verification (COCV ’08), April 2008. ENTCS. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blech JO, Grégoire B (2009) Using checker predicates in certifying code generation. In: Compiler optimization meets compiler verification (COCV ’09), March 2009. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blech JO, Glesner S, Leitner J, Mülling S (2005) Optimizing code generation from SSA form: a comparison between two formal correctness proofs in Isabelle/HOL. In: Compiler optimization meets compiler verification (COCV ’05), April 2005. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blech JO (2007) On certifying code generation. Technical Report 366/07, University of Kaiserslautern, November 2007

  9. Blech JO (2009) Certifying system translations using higher order theorem provers. PhD-Thesis. Logos, Berlin, ISBN 3832522115

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berghofer S, Nipkow T (2000) Proof terms for simply typed higher order logic. In: Theorem proving in higher order logics. LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  11. Blech JO, Périn M (2009) Using checker predicates in certifying code generation. In: Software and compilers for embedded systems (SCOPES ’09), April 2009

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blech JO, Périn M (2011) Generating invariant-based certificates for embedded systems. In ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst (TECS) (to appear)

  13. Blech JO, Poetzsch-Heffter A (2007) A certifying code generation phase. In: Compiler optimization meets compiler verification (COCV ’07), March 2007. ENTCS. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blech JO, Schaefer I, Poetzsch-Heffter A (2007) Translation validation of system abstractions. In: Runtime verification (RV ’07), March 2007. LNCS. vol 4839. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boutin S (1997) Using reflection to build efficient and certified decision procedures. In: Theoretical aspects of computer software (TACS ’97). LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chetali B, Nguyen QH (2008) Industrial use of formal methods for a high-level security evaluation. In: Formal methods in the development of computing systems. LNCS, vol 5014. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dave M (2003) Compiler verification: a bibliography. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes

  18. Gawkowski MJ, Blech JO, Poetzsch-Heffter A (2006) Certifying compilers based on formal translation contracts. Technical Report 355-06, University of Kaiserslautern, November 2006

  19. Grégoire B, Théry L, Werner B (2006) A computational approach to Pocklington certificates in type theory. In: Functional and logic programming, 8th international symposium. LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grégoire B, Mahboubi A (2005) Proving equalities in a commutative ring done right in Coq. In: Theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs ’05). LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Goos G, Zimmermann W (1999) Verification of compilers. In: Steffen B, Olderog ER (eds) Correct system design, November 1999. LNCS, vol 1710. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaufmann M, Moore J (2010) ACL2 homepage. See URL http://www.cs.-utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2

  23. Klein G, Nipkow T (2006) A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 28(4):619–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leroy X (2006) Formal certification of a compiler back-end or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL ’06). ACM Press, New York, pp 42–54

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lerner S, Millstein T, Rice E, Chambers C (2005) Automated soundness proofs for dataflow analyses and transformations via local rules. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL ’05). ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leinenbach D, Paul W, Petrova E (2005) Towards the formal verification of a C0 compiler: code generation and implementation correctness. In: Software engineering and formal methods (SEFM ’05). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  27. McCarthy J, Painter J (1967) Correctness of a compiler for arithmetic expressions. In: Applied mathematics. Mathematical aspects of computer science, vol 19. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 33–41

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moore J (1989) A mechanically verified language implementation. J Autom Reason 5(4):461–492

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moore J (1996) Piton: a mechanically verified assembly-level language. Kluwer Academic, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  30. Necula GC (1997) Proof-carrying code. In: ACM symposium on principles of programming languages and systems, Paris, France, January 1997

    Google Scholar 

  31. Necula GC (1998) Compiling with proofs. PhD thesis

  32. Necula GC (2000) Translation validation for an optimizing compiler. In: Programming language design and implementation (PLDI ’00). ACM Press, New York, pp 83–95

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Necula GC, Lee P (1998) The design and implementation of a certifying compiler. In: Conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI ’00). ACM Press, New York, pp 333–344

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nipkow T, Paulson LC, Wenzel M (2002) Isabelle/HOL—a proof assistant for higher-order logic. In: LNCS, vol 2283. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  35. Patterson DA, Hennessy JL (1998) Computer organization and design, the hardware/software interface, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  36. Poetzsch-Heffter A, Gawkowski MJ (2005) Towards proof generating compilers. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 132(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pnueli A, Siegel M, Singerman E (1998) Translation validation. In: LNCS, vol 1384. Springer, Berlin, p 151

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rinard M, Marinov D (1999) Credible compilation with pointers. In: Run-time result verification, Trento, Italy, July 1999. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  39. Samet H (1975) Automatically proving the correctness of translations involving optimized code. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University

  40. Samet H (1976) Compiler testing via symbolic interpretation. In: ACM 76: proceedings of the annual conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 492–497. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800191.805648

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. The Coq Development Team (2007) The Coq proof assistant reference manual—version 8.1. http://coq.inria.fr

  42. Tristan J-B, Leroy X (2008) Formal verification of translation validators: a case study on instruction scheduling optimizations. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL ’08). ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rival X (2004) Symbolic transfer functions-based approaches to certified compilation. In: Principles of programming languages (POPL ’04). ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zimmermann W (2006) On the correctness of transformations in compiler back-ends. In: Leveraging applications of formal methods. LNCS, vol 4313. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Zuck L, Pnueli A, Fang Y, Goldberg B (2003) VOC: A methodology for the translation validation of optimizing compilers. J Univers Comput Sci 9(3):223–247

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VERIMAG Laboratory, Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, France

    Jan Olaf Blech

  2. INRIA, Sophia Antipolis, France

    Benjamin Grégoire

Authors
  1. Jan Olaf Blech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Grégoire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Olaf Blech.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blech, J.O., Grégoire, B. Certifying compilers using higher-order theorem provers as certificate checkers. Form Methods Syst Des 38, 33–61 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-010-0108-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-010-0108-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation