In this short paper, we advocate for the idea that continuation-based intermediate languages correspond to intermediate logics. The goal of intermediate languages is to serve as a basis for compiler intermediate representations, allowing to represent expressive program transformations for optimisation and compilation, while preserving the properties that make programs compilable efficiently in the first place, such as the “stackability” of continuations. Intermediate logics are logics between intuitionistic and classical logic in terms of provability. Second-class continuations used in CPS-based intermediate languages correspond to a classical modal logic S4 with the added restriction that implications may only return modal types. This indeed corresponds to an intermediate logic, owing to the Gödel-McKinsey-Tarski theorem which states the intuitionistic nature of the modal fragment of S4. We introduce a three-kinded polarised sequent calculus for S4, together with an operational machine model that separates a heap from a stack. With this model we study a stackability property for the modal fragment of S4.

Secure, performant execution of untrusted code—as promised by WebAssembly (Wasm)—requires correct compilation to native code that enforces a sandbox. Errors in instruction selection can undermine the sandbox’s guarantees, but prior verification work struggles to scale to the complexity of realistic industrial compilers. We present Arrival , an instruction-selection verifier for the Cranelift production Wasm-to-native compiler. Arrival enables end-to-end, high-assurance verification while reducing developer effort. Arrival ( 1 ) automatically reasons about chains of instruction-selection rules, thereby reducing the need for develop-er-supplied intermediate specifications, ( 2 ) introduces a lightweight, efficient method for reasoning about stateful instruction-selection rules, and ( 3 ) automatically derives high-assurance machine code specifications. Our work verifies nearly all AArch64 instruction-selection rules reachable from Wasm core. Furthermore, Arrival reduces the developer effort required: 60 % of all specifications benefit from our automation, thereby requiring 2.6 × fewer hand-written specifications than prior approaches. Arrival finds new bugs in Cranelift’s instruction selection, and it is viable for integration into production workflows.

Dependently typed programming languages such as Coq, Agda, Idris, and F*, allow programmers to write detailed specifications of their programs and prove their programs meet these specifications. However, these specifications can be violated during compilation since they are erased after type checking. External programs linked with the compiled program can violate the specifications of the original program and change the behavior of the compiled program – even when compiled with a verified compiler. For example, since Coq does not allow explicitly allocating memory, a programmer might link their Coq program with a C program that can allocate memory. Even if the Coq program is compiled with a verified compiler, the external C program can still violate the memory-safe specification of the Coq program by providing an uninitialized pointer to memory. This error could be ruled out by type checking in a language expressive enough to indicate whether memory is initialized versus uninitialized. Linking with a program with an uninitialized pointer could be considered ill-typed, and our linking process could prevent linking with ill-typed programs. To facilitate type checking during linking, we can use type-preserving compilation, which preserves the types through the compilation process. In this ongoing work, we develop a typed intermediate language that supports dependent memory allocation, as well as a dependent-type-preserving compiler pass for memory allocation.

Type-preserving compilation seeks to make intent as much as a part of compilation as computation . Specifications of intent in the form of types are preserved and exploited during compilation and linking, alongside the mere computation of a program. This provides lightweight guarantees for compilation, optimization, and linking. Unfortunately, type-preserving compilation typically interferes with important optimizations. In this paper, we study typed closure representation and optimization. We analyze limitations in prior typed closure conversion representations, and the requirements of many important closure optimizations. We design a new typed closure representation in our Flat-Closure Calculus (FCC) that admits all these optimizations, prove type safety and subject reduction of FCC, prove type preservation from an existing closure converted IR to FCC, and implement common closure optimizations for FCC.

Common functional languages incentivize tail-recursive functions, as opposed to general recursive functions that consume stack space and may not scale to large inputs. This distinction occasionally requires writing functions in a tail-recursive style that may be more complex and slower than the natural, non-tail-recursive definition.

This work describes our implementation of the tail modulo constructor (TMC) transformation in the OCaml compiler, an optimization that provides stack-efficiency for a larger class of functions — tail-recursive modulo constructors — which includes in particular the natural definition of List.map and many similar recursive data-constructing functions.

We prove the correctness of this program transformation in a simplified setting — a small untyped calculus — that captures the salient aspects of the OCaml implementation. Our proof is mechanized in the Coq proof assistant, using the Iris base logic. An independent contribution of our work is an extension of the Simuliris approach to define simulation relations that support different calling conventions. To our knowledge, this is the first use of Simuliris to prove the correctness of a compiler transformation.

Guarded Kleene Algebra with Tests (GKAT) provides a sound and complete framework to reason about trace equivalence between simple imperative programs. However, there are still several notable limitations. First, GKAT is completely agnostic with respect to the meaning of primitives, to keep equivalence decidable. Second, GKAT excludes non-local control flow such as goto, break , and return . To overcome these limitations, we introduce Control-Flow GKAT (CF-GKAT) , a system that allows reasoning about programs that include non-local control flow as well as hardcoded values. CF-GKAT is able to soundly and completely verify trace equivalence of a larger class of programs, while preserving the nearly-linear efficiency of GKAT. This makes CF-GKAT suitable for the verification of control-flow manipulating procedures, such as decompilation and goto-elimination. To demonstrate CF-GKAT’s abilities, we validated the output of several highly non-trivial program transformations, such as Erosa and Hendren’s goto -elimination procedure and the output of Ghidra decompiler. CF-GKAT opens up the application of Kleene Algebra to a wider set of challenges, and provides an important verification tool that can be applied to the field of decompilation and control-flow transformation.

Static single assignment form, or SSA, has been the dominant compiler intermediate representation for decades. In this paper, we give a type theory for a variant of SSA, including its equational theory, which are strong enough to validate a variety of control and data flow transformations. We also give a categorical semantics for SSA, and show that the type theory is sound and complete with respect to the categorical axiomatization. We demonstrate the utility of our model by exhibiting a variety of concrete models satisfying our axioms, including in particular a model of TSO weak memory. The correctness of the syntactic metatheory, as well as the completeness proof has been mechanized in the Lean proof assistant.

Coarse-grained reconfigurable arrays (CGRAs) have gained attention in recent years due to their promising power efficiency compared to traditional von Neumann architectures. To program these architectures using ordinary languages such as C, a dataflow compiler must transform the original sequential, imperative program into an equivalent dataflow graph, composed of dataflow operators running in parallel. This transformation is challenging since the asynchronous nature of dataflow graphs allows out-of-order execution of operators, leading to behaviors not present in the original imperative programs. Weaddress this challenge by developing a translation validation technique for dataflow compilers to ensure that the dataflow program has the same behavior as the original imperative program on all possible inputs and schedules of execution. We apply this method to a state-of-the-art dataflow compiler targeting the RipTide CGRAarchitecture. Our tool uncovers 8 compiler bugs where the compiler outputs incorrect dataflow graphs, including a data race that is otherwise hard to discover via testing. After repairing these bugs, our tool verifies the correct compilation of all programs in the RipTide benchmark suite.

One of the central claims of fame of the Coq proof assistant is extraction, i.e., the ability to obtain efficient programs in industrial programming languages such as OCaml, Haskell, or Scheme from programs written in Coq’s expressive dependent type theory. Extraction is of great practical usefulness, used crucially e.g., in the CompCert project. However, for such executables obtained by extraction, the extraction process is part of the trusted code base (TCB), as are Coq’s kernel and the compiler used to compile the extracted code. The extraction process contains intricate semantic transformation of programs that rely on subtle operational features of both the source and target language. Its code has also evolved since the last theoretical exposition in the seminal PhD thesis of Pierre Letouzey. Furthermore, while the exact correctness statements for the execution of extracted code are described clearly in academic literature, the interoperability with unverified code has never been investigated formally, and yet is used in virtually every project relying on extraction. In this paper, we describe the development of a novel extraction pipeline from Coq to OCaml, implemented and verified in Coq itself, with a clear correctness theorem and guarantees for safe interoperability. We build our work on the MetaCoq project, which aims at decreasing the TCB of Coq’s kernel by re-implementing it in Coq itself and proving it correct w.r.t. a formal specification of Coq’s type theory in Coq. Since OCaml does not have a formal specification, we make use of the Malfunction project specifying the semantics of the intermediate language of the OCaml compiler. Our work fills some gaps in the literature and highlights important differences between the operational semantics of Coq programs and their extraction. In particular, we focus on the guarantees that can be provided for interoperability with unverified code, and prove that extracted programs of first-order data type are correct and can safely interoperate, whereas for higher-order programs already simple interoperations can lead to incorrect behaviour and even outright segfaults.

Guaranteeing correct compilation is nearly synonymous with compiler verification. However, the correctness guarantees for certified compilers and translation validation can be stronger than we need. While many compilers do have incorrect behavior, even when a compiler bug occurs it may not change the program’s behavior meaningfully with respect to its specification. Many real-world specifications are necessarily partial in that they do not completely specify all of a program’s behavior. While compiler verification and formal methods have had great success for safety-critical systems, there are magnitudes more code, such as math libraries, compiled with incorrect compilers, that would benefit from a guarantee of its partial specification. This paper explores a technique to get guarantees about compiled programs even in the presence of an unverified, or even incorrect, compiler. Our workflow compiles programs, specifications, and proof objects, from an embedded source language and logic to an embedded target language and logic. We implement two simple imperative languages, each with its own Hoare-style program logic, and a system for instantiating proof compilers out of compilers between these two languages that fulfill certain equational conditions in Coq. We instantiate our system on four compilers: one that is incomplete, two that are incorrect, and one that is correct but unverified. We use these instances to compile Hoare proofs for several programs, and we are able to leverage compiled proofs to assist in proofs of larger programs. Our proof compiler system is formally proven sound in Coq. We demonstrate how our approach enables strong target program guarantees even in the presence of incorrect compilation, opening up new options for which proof burdens one might shoulder instead of, or in addition to, compiler correctness.

Today’s compilers employ a variety of non-trivial optimizations to achieve good performance. One key trick compilers use to justify transformations of concurrent programs is to assume that the source program has no data races: if it does, they cause the program to have undefined behavior (UB) and give the compiler free rein. However, verifying correctness of optimizations that exploit this assumption is a non-trivial problem. In particular, prior work either has not proven that such optimizations preserve program termination (particularly non-obvious when considering optimizations that move instructions out of loop bodies), or has treated all synchronization operations as external functions (losing the ability to reorder instructions around them).

In this work we present Simuliris, the first simulation technique to establish termination preservation (under a fair scheduler) for a range of concurrent program transformations that exploit UB in the source language. Simuliris is based on the idea of using ownership to reason modularly about the assumptions the compiler makes about programs with well-defined behavior. This brings the benefits of concurrent separation logics to the space of verifying program transformations: we can combine powerful reasoning techniques such as framing and coinduction to perform thread-local proofs of non-trivial concurrent program optimizations. Simuliris is built on a (non-step-indexed) variant of the Coq-based Iris framework, and is thus not tied to a particular language. In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of Simuliris on standard compiler optimizations involving data race UB, we also instantiate it with Jung et al.’s Stacked Borrows semantics for Rust and generalize their proofs of interesting type-based aliasing optimizations to account for concurrency.

Many programmers use dependently typed languages such as Coq to machine-verify high-assurance software. However, existing compilers for these languages provide no guarantees after compiling, nor when linking after compilation. Type-preserving compilers preserve guarantees encoded in types and then use type checking to verify compiled code and ensure safe linking with external code. Unfortunately, standard compiler passes do not preserve the dependent typing of commonly used (intensional) type theories. This is because assumptions valid in simpler type systems no longer hold, and intensional dependent type systems are highly sensitive to syntactic changes, including compilation. We develop an A-normal form (ANF) translation with join-point optimization—a standard translation for making control flow explicit in functional languages—from the Extended Calculus of Constructions (ECC) with dependent elimination of booleans and natural numbers (a representative subset of Coq). Our dependently typed target language has equality reflection, allowing the type system to encode semantic equality of terms. This is key to proving type preservation and correctness of separate compilation for this translation. This is the first ANF translation for dependent types. Unlike related translations, it supports the universe hierarchy, and does not rely on parametricity or impredicativity.

An efficient optimizing compiler can perform many cascading rewrites in a single pass, using auxiliary data structures such as variable binding maps, delayed substitutions, and occurrence counts. Such optimizers often perform transformations according to relatively simple rewrite rules, but the subtle interactions between the data structures needed for efficiency make them tricky to write and trickier to prove correct. We present a system for semi-automatically deriving both an efficient program transformation and its correctness proof from a list of rewrite rules and specifications of the auxiliary data structures it requires. Dependent types ensure that the holes left behind by our system (for the user to fill in) are filled in correctly, allowing the user low-level control over the implementation without having to worry about getting it wrong. We implemented our system in Coq (though it could be implemented in other logics as well), and used it to write optimization passes that perform uncurrying, inlining, dead code elimination, and static evaluation of case expressions and record projections. The generated implementations are sometimes faster, and at most 40% slower, than hand-written counterparts on a small set of benchmarks; in some cases, they require significantly less code to write and prove correct.

Compositional compiler verification is a difficult problem that focuses on separate compilation of program components with possibly different verified compilers. Logical relations are widely used in proving correctness of program transformations in higher-order languages; however, they do not scale to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers due to their lack of transitivity. The only known technique to apply to compositional verification of multi-pass compilers for higher-order languages is parametric inter-language simulations (PILS), which is however significantly more complicated than traditional proof techniques for compiler correctness. In this paper, we present a novel verification framework for lightweight compositional compiler correctness . We demonstrate that by imposing the additional restriction that program components are compiled by pipelines that go through the same sequence of intermediate representations , logical relation proofs can be transitively composed in order to derive an end-to-end compositional specification for multi-pass compiler pipelines. Unlike traditional logical-relation frameworks, our framework supports divergence preservation—even when transformations reduce the number of program steps. We achieve this by parameterizing our logical relations with a pair of relational invariants . We apply this technique to verify a multi-pass, optimizing middle-end pipeline for CertiCoq, a compiler from Gallina (Coq’s specification language) to C. The pipeline optimizes and closure-converts an untyped functional intermediate language (ANF or CPS) to a subset of that language without nested functions, which can be easily code-generated to low-level languages. Notably, our pipeline performs more complex closure-allocation optimizations than the state of the art in verified compilation. Using our novel verification framework, we prove an end-to-end theorem for our pipeline that covers both termination and divergence and applies to whole-program and separate compilation, even when different modules are compiled with different optimizations. Our results are mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.

Instead of a monolithic programming language trying to cover all features of interest, some programming systems are designed by combining together simpler languages that cooperate to cover the same feature space. This can improve usability by making each part simpler than the whole, but there is a risk of abstraction leaks from one language to another that would break expectations of the users familiar with only one or some of the involved languages.

We propose a formal specification for what it means for a given language in a multi-language system to be usable without leaks: it should embed into the multi-language in a fully abstract way, that is, its contextual equivalence should be unchanged in the larger system.

To demonstrate our proposed design principle and formal specification criterion, we design a multi-language programming system that combines an ML-like statically typed functional language and another language with linear types and linear state. Our goal is to cover a good part of the expressiveness of languages that mix functional programming and linear state (ownership), at only a fraction of the complexity. We prove that the embedding of ML into the multi-language system is fully abstract: functional programmers should not fear abstraction leaks. We show examples of combined programs demonstrating in-place memory updates and safe resource handling, and an implementation extending OCaml with our linear language.

Compiler correctness proofs for higher-order concurrent languages are difficult: they involve establishing a termination-preserving refinement between a concurrent high-level source language and an implementation that uses low-level shared memory primitives. However, existing logics for proving concurrent refinement either neglect properties such as termination, or only handle first-order state. In this paper, we address these limitations by extending Iris, a recent higher-order concurrent separation logic, with support for reasoning about termination-preserving refinements. To demonstrate the power of these extensions, we prove the correctness of an efficient implementation of a higher-order, session-typed language. To our knowledge, this is the first program logic capable of giving a compiler correctness proof for such a language. The soundness of our extensions and our compiler correctness proof have been mechanized in Coq.

A fully abstract compiler guarantees that two source components are observationally equivalent in the source language if and only if their translations are observationally equivalent in the target. Full abstraction implies the translation is secure: target-language attackers can make no more observations of a compiled component than a source-language attacker interacting with the original source component. Proving full abstraction for realistic compilers is challenging because realistic target languages contain features (such as control effects) unavailable in the source, while proofs of full abstraction require showing that every target context to which a compiled component may be linked can be back-translated to a behaviorally equivalent source context.

We prove the first full abstraction result for a translation whose target language contains exceptions, but the source does not. Our translation—specifically, closure conversion of simply typed λ-calculus with recursive types—uses types at the target level to ensure that a compiled component is never linked with attackers that have more distinguishing power than source-level attackers. We present a new back-translation technique based on a shallow embedding of the target language into the source language at a dynamic type. Then boundaries are inserted that mediate terms between the untyped embedding and the strongly-typed source. This technique allows back-translating non-terminating programs, target features that are untypeable in the source, and well-bracketed effects.

We have developed and mechanically verified an ML system called CakeML, which supports a substantial subset of Standard ML. CakeML is implemented as an interactive read-eval-print loop (REPL) in x86-64 machine code. Our correctness theorem ensures that this REPL implementation prints only those results permitted by the semantics of CakeML. Our verification effort touches on a breadth of topics including lexing, parsing, type checking, incremental and dynamic compilation, garbage collection, arbitraryprecision arithmetic, and compiler bootstrapping.

Compilers should be correct. To improve the quality of C compilers, we created Csmith, a randomized test-case generation tool, and spent three years using it to find compiler bugs. During this period we reported more than 325 previously unknown bugs to compiler developers. Every compiler we tested was found to crash and also to silently generate wrong code when presented with valid input. In this paper we present our compiler-testing tool and the results of our bug-hunting study. Our first contribution is to advance the state of the art in compiler testing. Unlike previous tools, Csmith generates programs that cover a large subset of C while avoiding the undefined and unspecified behaviors that would destroy its ability to automatically find wrong-code bugs. Our second contribution is a collection of qualitative and quantitative results about the bugs we have found in open-source C compilers.

This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a verified compiler is useful in the context of critical software and its formal verification: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well.