 06 Jun, 2018 2 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 15 May, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 02 May, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored
The simplification is acheieved by removing the stackUR workaround. That RA was used to enusure that the nodes that were parts of the stack do not change themselves  this is crucial for the safety of pop and iter operations. Now this is achieved by using duplicable propositions (∃ q, n ↦ᵢ{q} v) to ensure that the node are still alive/not freed.

 23 Apr, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 09 Apr, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 29 Mar, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 28 Mar, 2018 3 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 24 Mar, 2018 2 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 31 Jan, 2018 5 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 30 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 29 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored
Thanks to Robbert

 28 Jan, 2018 2 commits


Dan Frumin authored
Thunk the FG/CG_increment functions at the point of initialization. This allows us to avoid the use of lamsubst.

Dan Frumin authored

 25 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored
 relational specifications for weak increment  logically atomic specification for `ticket_lock.acquire`

 18 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 15 Jan, 2018 5 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored
We define a stronger rule `related_bind_up`, in which there is a baked in semantic type `R`. The idea here is that we don't actually require the expressions that we bind to have the same syntactic type. ``` {E;R::Δ;⤉Γ} ⊨ e1 ≤log≤ e2 : τ ∗ (∀ vv, ⟦ τ ⟧ (R::Δ) vv ∗ {E;Δ;Γ} ⊨ K[v1] ≤log≤ K'[v2] : τ') ____________________________________________________________ {E;Δ;Γ} ⊨ K[e1] ≤log≤ K'[e2] : τ' ``` We can then use `bin_log_related_weaken_2` to prove the original binding rule. The advantages of the new rule is that it allows us to prove the following compatibility rule for seq: ``` {E;(R::Δ);⤉Γ} ⊨ e1 ≤log≤ e1' : τ1 ∗ {E;Δ;Γ} ⊨ e2 ≤log≤ e2' : τ2 ∗ {E;Δ;Γ} ⊨ (e1;; e2) ≤log≤ (e1';; e2') : τ2. ``` The idea here is that we can also pick any *semantic* type to related e1 and e1'. For instance, if both e1 and e1' are expressions of type Nat then it is not necessarily the case that we can relate them at that type  they might reduce to two different numerals  but it *should* be the case that we can relate their effects, if it makes sense. E.g. ((#l < #1;; #0) ;; e) ≤ ((#l < #1;; #1) ;; e)

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 14 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 12 Jan, 2018 4 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 06 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 04 Jan, 2018 2 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 03 Jan, 2018 3 commits


Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

Dan Frumin authored

 14 Dec, 2017 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored
