Coinductive big-step operational semantics

Information and Computation

Volumn 207, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 284-304

  Leroy, Xavier ^a   Grall, Hervé ^b  

^a INRIA   (France)

^b ECOLE DES MINES DE NANTES   (France)

Author keywords

Big step semantics; Coinduction; Compiler correctness; Mechanized proofs; Natural semantics; Operational semantics; Reduction semantics; Small step semantics; The Coq proof assistant; Type soundness

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; PROGRAM COMPILERS; THEOREM PROVING;

BIG-STEP SEMANTICS; COINDUCTION; COMPILER CORRECTNESS; COQ PROOF ASSISTANT; MECHANIZED PROOFS; NATURAL SEMANTICS; OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS; REDUCTION SEMANTICS; SMALL-STEP SEMANTICS; TYPE SOUNDNESS;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 69349094352     PISSN: 08905401     EISSN: 10902651     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ic.2007.12.004     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. G. Kahn, Natural semantics, in: STACS 87, 4th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 247, Springer, Berlin, 1987, pp. 22-39.
2. G.D. Plotkin, A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, 1981.
3. G.D. Plotkin, A structural approach to operational semantics, Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 60-61 (2004) 17-139.
4. X. Leroy, Formal certification of a compiler back-end, or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant, 33rd symposium Principles of Programming Languages, ACM Press, 2006, pp. 42-54.
5. G. Klein, T. Nipkow, A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 28 (4) (2006) 619-695. (Pubitemid 44222711)
6. M. Strecker, Compiler Verification for C0, Technical Report, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, April 2005.
7. T. Hardin, L. Maranget, B. Pagano, Functional runtimes within the lambda-sigma calculus, Journal of Functional Programming 8 (2) (1998) 131-176.
8. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, Inductive definitions, semantics and abstract interpretation, 19th symposium Principles of Programming Languages, ACM Press, 1992, pp. 83-94.
9. Coq Development Team, The Coq proof assistant, software and documentation, 1989-2008. Available from: .
10. Y. Bertot, P. Castéran, Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development-Coq'Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
11. R. Milner, M. Tofte, Co-induction in relational semantics, Theoretical Computer Science 87 (1991) 209-220. (Pubitemid 21710406)
12. V. Gapeyev, M. Levin, B. Pierce, Recursive subtyping revealed, Journal of Functional Programming 12 (6) (2003) 511-548.
13. P. Aczel, An introduction to inductive definitions, in: J. Barwise (Ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Studies in Logics and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 90, North-Holland, 1977, pp. 739-782.
14. A. Tarski, A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5 (2) (1955) 285-309.
15. B. Courcelle, Arbres infinis et systèmes d'équations, R.A.I.R.O. Informatique Théorique 13 (1979) 31-48.
16. H. Grall, Deux critères de sécurité pour l'exécution de code mobile, Ph.D. Thesis, École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, December 2003.
17. L. Simon, A. Mallya, A. Bansal, G. Gupta, Coinductive logic programming, in: Logic Programming, 22nd International Conference, ICLP 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4079, Springer, Berlin, 2006, pp. 330-345. (Pubitemid 44492600)
18. E. Giménez, Codifying guarded definitions with recursive schemes, Types for Proofs and Programs. InternationalWorkshop TYPES '94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 996, Springer, Berlin, 1994, pp. 39-59.
19. X. Leroy, H. Grall, Coinductive big-step operational semantics-the Coq development. Available from: , February 2007.
20. A.K.Wright, M. Felleisen, A syntactic approach to type soundness, Information and Computation 115 (1) (1994) 38-94.
21. M. Tofte, Operational Semantics and Polymorphic Type Inference, Ph.D. Thesis CST-52-88, University of Edinburgh, 1988.
22. S. Marlow, S. Peyton Jones, Making a fast curry: push/enter vs. eval/apply for higher-order languages, Journal of Functional Programming 16 (4-5) (2006) 375-414.
23. P.J. Landin, The mechanical evaluation of expressions, The Computer Journal 6 (1964) 308-320.
24. G. Cousineau, P.-L. Curien, M. Mauny, The categorical abstract machine, Science of Computer Programming 8 (2) (1987) 173-202.
25. L. Cardelli, The functional abstractmachine, Technical report TR-107,AT&T Bell Laboratories, April 1983.Reprinted in Polymorphism - The ML/LCF/Hope Newsletters 1(1), 1983.
26. M. Felleisen, D.P. Friedman, Control operators, the SECD machine and the λ-calculus, Formal Description of Programming Concepts III, North-Holland, 1986, pp. 131-141.
27. M. Rittri, Proving the correctness of a virtual machine by a bisimulation, Licentiate thesis, Göteborg University, 1988.
28. B. Grégoire, Compilation des termes de preuves: un (nouveau) mariage entre Coq et OCaml, Ph.D. Thesis, University Paris 7, 2003.
29. Y. Bertot, Filters on coinductive streams, an application to Eratosthenes' sieve, Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications (TLCA'05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3461, Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 102-115. (Pubitemid 41312711)
30. D.A. Schmidt, Trace-based abstract interpretation of operational semantics, Lisp and Symbolic Computation 10 (3) (1998) 237-271.
31. J. Hughes, A. Moran, Making choices lazily, Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, ACM Press, 1995, pp. 108-119.
32. R.L. Crole, Lectures on [Co]Induction and [Co]Algebras, Technical Report 1998/12, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Leicester, 1998.
33. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, Bi-inductive structural semantics (extended abstract), in:Workshop on Structural Operational Semantics 2007, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier, vol. 192 (1), 2007, pp. 29-44. (Pubitemid 47615616)
34. C.A. Gunter, D. Rémy, A Proof-Theoretic Assessment of Runtime Type Errors, Research Report 11261-921230-43TM, AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1993.
35. A. Stoughton, An operational semantics framework supporting the incremental construction of derivation trees, in: SecondWorkshop on Higher-Order Operational Techniques in Semantics (HOOTS II), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 10, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 122-133. (Pubitemid 40716008)
36. X. Leroy, F. Rouaix, Security properties of typed applets, in: J. Vitek, C. Jensen (Eds.), Secure Internet Programming-Security issues for Mobile and Distributed Objects, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1603, Springer, 1999, pp. 147-182.
37. A.M. Pitts, Operationally-based theories of program equivalence, in: P. Dybjer, A.M. Pitts (Eds.), Semantics and Logics of Computation, Publications of the Newton Institute, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 241-298.
38. A.M. Pitts, A co-induction principle for recursively defined domains, Theoretical Computer Science 124 (2) (1994) 195-219.
39. R. Kennaway, J.W. Klop, M.R. Sleep, F.-J. de Vries, Infinitary lambda calculus, Theoretical Computer Science 175 (1) (1997) 93-125. (Pubitemid 127454071)
40. A. Berarducci, M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, Infinite lambda-calculus and types, Theoretical Computer Science 212 (1-2) (1999) 29-75.
41. X. Leroy, The Compcert verified compiler: commented Coq development. Available from: , March 2008 .