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.

Type soundness, which asserts that “well-typed programs cannot go wrong,” is widely viewed as the canonical theorem one must prove to establish that a type system is doing its job. It is commonly proved using the so-called syntactic approach (also known as progress and preservation ), which has had a huge impact on the study and teaching of programming language foundations. Unfortunately, syntactic type soundness is a rather weak theorem. It only applies to programs that are well typed in their entirety and thus tells us nothing about the many programs written in “safe” languages that make use of “unsafe” language features. Even worse, it tells us nothing about whether type systems achieve one of their main goals: enforcement of data abstraction. One can easily define a language that enjoys syntactic type soundness and yet fails to support even the most basic modular reasoning principles for abstraction mechanisms like closures, objects, and abstract data types. Given these concerns, we argue that programming languages researchers should no longer be satisfied with proving syntactic type soundness and should instead start proving semantic type soundness , a more useful theorem that captures more accurately what type systems are actually good for. Semantic type soundness is an old idea—Milner’s original account of type soundness from 1978 was semantic—but it fell out of favor in the 1990s due to limitations and complexities of denotational models. In the succeeding decades, thanks to a series of technical advances—notably, step-indexed Kripke logical relations constructed over operational semantics and higher-order concurrent separation logic as consolidated in the Iris framework in Coq—we can now build (machine-checked) semantic soundness proofs at a much higher level of abstraction than was previously possible. The resulting “logical” approach to semantic type soundness has already been employed to great effect in a number of recent papers, but those papers typically (a) concern advanced problem scenarios that complicate the presentation, (b) assume significant prior knowledge of the reader, and (c) suppress many details of the proofs. Here, we aim to provide a gentler, more pedagogically motivated introduction to logical type soundness, targeted at a broader audience that may or may not be familiar with logical relations and Iris. As a bonus, we also show how logical type soundness proofs can easily be generalized to establish an even stronger relational property— representation independence —for realistic type systems.

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.

We present a new version of ReLoC: a relational separation logic for proving refinements of programs with higher-order state, fine-grained concurrency, polymorphism and recursive types. The core of ReLoC is its refinement judgment $𝑒\precsim 𝑒\prime :𝜏$, which states that a program $𝑒$ refines a program $𝑒\prime$ at type $𝜏$. ReLoC provides type-directed structural rules and symbolic execution rules in separation-logic style for manipulating the judgment, whereas in prior work on refinements for languages with higher-order state and concurrency, such proofs were carried out by unfolding the judgment into its definition in the model. ReLoC’s abstract proof rules make it simpler to carry out refinement proofs, and enable us to generalize the notion of logically atomic specifications to the relational case, which we call logically atomic relational specifications. We build ReLoC on top of the Iris framework for separation logic in Coq, allowing us to leverage features of Iris to prove soundness of ReLoC, and to carry out refinement proofs in ReLoC. We implement tactics for interactive proofs in ReLoC, allowing us to mechanize several case studies in Coq, and thereby demonstrate the practicality of ReLoC. ReLoC Reloaded extends ReLoC (LICS’18) with various technical improvements, a new Coq mechanization, and support for Iris’s prophecy variables. The latter allows us to carry out refinement proofs that involve reasoning about the program’s future. We also expand ReLoC’s notion of logically atomic relational specifications with a new flavor based on the HOCAP pattern by Svendsen et al.

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.