Commit e7d1d5d0 authored by Ralf Jung's avatar Ralf Jung
Browse files

move the proofs that we can perform stps in the STS to their own lemmas

parent 1476960a
......@@ -85,6 +85,47 @@ Module barrier_proto.
rewrite /= /tok /=. intros. set_solver +Hdisj Htok.
Qed.
(* Proof that we can take the steps we need. *)
Lemma signal_step I:
sts.steps (State Low I, {[Send]}) (State High I, ).
Proof.
apply rtc_once. constructor; first constructor;
rewrite /= /tok /=; set_solver.
Qed.
Lemma wait_step i I :
i I sts.steps (State High I, {[ Change i ]}) (State High (I {[ i ]}), ).
Proof.
intros. apply rtc_once.
constructor; first constructor; rewrite /= /tok /=; [set_solver..|].
(* TODO this proof is rather annoying. *)
apply elem_of_equiv=>t. rewrite !elem_of_union.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
destruct t as [j|]; last naive_solver.
rewrite elem_of_difference elem_of_singleton.
destruct (decide (i = j)); naive_solver.
Qed.
Lemma split_step p i i1 i2 I :
i I i1 I i2 I i1 i2
sts.steps (State p I, {[ Change i ]})
(State p ({[i1]} ({[i2]} (I {[i]}))), {[ Change i1; Change i2 ]}).
Proof.
intros. apply rtc_once.
constructor; first constructor; rewrite /= /tok /=; first (destruct p; set_solver).
(* This gets annoying... and I think I can see a pattern with all these proofs. Automatable? *)
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
destruct p; naive_solver.
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t as [j|]; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
destruct (decide (i1 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i2 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i = j)); naive_solver.
Qed.
End barrier_proto.
(* I am too lazy to type the full module name all the time. But then
why did we even put this into a module? Because some of the names
......@@ -100,7 +141,13 @@ Section proof.
Context `{stsG heap_lang Σ sts}.
Context `{savedPropG heap_lang Σ}.
Local Hint Immediate i_states_closed low_states_closed.
Local Hint Immediate i_states_closed low_states_closed : sts.
Local Hint Resolve signal_step wait_step split_step : sts.
Local Hint Resolve sts.closed_op : sts.
Hint Extern 50 (_ _) => set_solver : sts.
Hint Extern 50 (_ _) => set_solver : sts.
Hint Extern 50 (_ _) => set_solver : sts.
Local Notation iProp := (iPropG heap_lang Σ).
......@@ -156,28 +203,25 @@ Section proof.
rewrite [(Π★{set _} (λ _, saved_prop_own _ _))%I](big_sepS_delete _ I i) //.
rewrite !assoc [(_ (_ - _))%I]comm !assoc [(_ _)%I]comm.
rewrite !assoc [(_ _ i _)%I]comm !assoc [(_ _ i _)%I]comm -!assoc.
do 4 (rewrite big_sepS_insert; last set_solver).
rewrite !fn_lookup_insert fn_lookup_insert_ne // !fn_lookup_insert.
rewrite 3!assoc. apply sep_mono.
- rewrite saved_prop_agree. u_strip_later.
apply wand_intro_l. rewrite [(_ (_ - Π★{set _} _))%I]comm !assoc wand_elim_r.
rewrite (big_sepS_delete _ I i) //.
rewrite big_sepS_insert; last set_solver.
rewrite big_sepS_insert; last set_solver.
rewrite [(_ Π★{set _} _)%I]comm !assoc [(_ Π★{set _} _)%I]comm -!assoc.
rewrite [(_ Π★{set _} _)%I]comm [(_ Π★{set _} _)%I]comm -!assoc.
apply sep_mono.
+ apply big_sepS_mono; first done. intros j.
rewrite elem_of_difference not_elem_of_singleton. intros.
rewrite fn_lookup_insert_ne; last naive_solver.
rewrite fn_lookup_insert_ne; last naive_solver.
done.
+ rewrite !fn_lookup_insert fn_lookup_insert_ne // !fn_lookup_insert !assoc.
+ rewrite !assoc.
eapply wand_apply_r'; first done.
apply: (eq_rewrite (Ψ i) Q (λ x, x)%I); last by eauto with I.
rewrite eq_sym. eauto with I.
- rewrite big_sepS_insert; last set_solver.
rewrite big_sepS_insert; last set_solver.
rewrite !assoc. apply sep_mono.
+ rewrite !fn_lookup_insert fn_lookup_insert_ne // !fn_lookup_insert comm.
done.
- rewrite !assoc. apply sep_mono.
+ by rewrite comm.
+ apply big_sepS_mono; first done. intros j.
rewrite elem_of_difference not_elem_of_singleton. intros.
rewrite fn_lookup_insert_ne; last naive_solver.
......@@ -248,7 +292,7 @@ Section proof.
{ rewrite -later_intro. apply wand_intro_l. by rewrite right_id. }
rewrite (sts_own_weaken _ _ (i_states i low_states) _
({[ Change i ]} {[ Send ]})).
+ apply pvs_mono. rewrite sts_ownS_op; eauto; []. set_solver.
+ apply pvs_mono. rewrite sts_ownS_op; eauto with sts.
(* TODO the rest of this proof is rather annoying. *)
+ rewrite /= /tok /=. apply elem_of_equiv=>t.
rewrite elem_of_difference elem_of_union.
......@@ -259,7 +303,7 @@ Section proof.
exfalso. apply Hn. left. set_solver.
* move=>[[EQ]|?]; last discriminate. set_solver.
+ apply elem_of_intersection. rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver.
+ apply sts.closed_op; eauto; first set_solver; [].
+ apply sts.closed_op; eauto with sts; [].
apply (non_empty_inhabited (State Low {[ i ]})).
apply elem_of_intersection.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver.
......@@ -280,9 +324,7 @@ Section proof.
eapply wp_store; eauto with I ndisj.
rewrite -!assoc. apply sep_mono_r. u_strip_later.
apply wand_intro_l. rewrite -(exist_intro (State High I)).
rewrite -(exist_intro ). rewrite const_equiv /=; last first.
{ apply rtc_once. constructor; first constructor;
rewrite /= /tok /=; set_solver. }
rewrite -(exist_intro ). rewrite const_equiv /=; last by eauto with sts.
rewrite left_id -later_intro {2}/barrier_inv -!assoc. apply sep_mono_r.
rewrite !assoc [(_ P)%I]comm !assoc -2!assoc.
apply sep_mono; last first.
......@@ -325,20 +367,13 @@ Section proof.
do 3 (rewrite -pvs_frame_r; apply sep_mono; last (try apply later_intro; reflexivity)).
rewrite [(_ heap_ctx _)%I]comm -!assoc -pvs_frame_l. apply sep_mono_r.
rewrite comm -pvs_frame_l. apply sep_mono_r.
apply sts_ownS_weaken; eauto using sts.up_subseteq. }
apply sts_ownS_weaken; eauto using sts.up_subseteq with sts. }
(* a High state: the comparison succeeds, and we perform a transition and
return to the client *)
rewrite [(_ (_ _ ))%I]sep_elim_l.
rewrite -(exist_intro (State High (I {[ i ]}))) -(exist_intro ).
change (i I) in Hs.
rewrite const_equiv /=; last first.
{ apply rtc_once. constructor; first constructor; rewrite /= /tok /=; [set_solver..|].
(* TODO this proof is rather annoying. *)
apply elem_of_equiv=>t. rewrite !elem_of_union.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
destruct t as [j|]; last naive_solver.
rewrite elem_of_difference elem_of_singleton.
destruct (decide (i = j)); naive_solver. }
rewrite const_equiv /=; last by eauto with sts.
rewrite left_id -[( barrier_inv _ _ _)%I]later_intro {2}/barrier_inv.
rewrite -!assoc. apply sep_mono_r. rewrite /ress.
rewrite (big_sepS_delete _ I i) // [(_ ★ Π★{set _} _)%I]comm -!assoc.
......@@ -381,19 +416,7 @@ Section proof.
(* Case I: Low state. *)
- rewrite -(exist_intro (State Low ({[i1]} ({[i2]} (I {[i]}))))).
rewrite -(exist_intro ({[Change i1 ]} {[ Change i2 ]})).
rewrite const_equiv; last first.
{ apply rtc_once. constructor; first constructor; rewrite /= /tok /=; first set_solver.
(* This gets annoying... and I think I can see a pattern with all these proofs. Automatable? *)
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
naive_solver.
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t as [j|]; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
destruct (decide (i1 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i2 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i = j)); naive_solver. }
rewrite const_equiv; last by eauto with sts.
rewrite left_id -later_intro {1 3}/barrier_inv.
(* FIXME ssreflect rewrite fails if there are evars around. Also, this is very slow because we don't have a proof mode. *)
rewrite -(waiting_split _ _ _ Q R1 R2); [|done..].
......@@ -418,10 +441,10 @@ Section proof.
do 2 rewrite !(assoc ()%I) [(_ sts_ownS _ _ _)%I]comm.
rewrite -!assoc. rewrite [(sts_ownS _ _ _ _ _)%I]assoc -pvs_frame_r.
apply sep_mono.
* rewrite -sts_ownS_op; [|set_solver|by eauto..].
* rewrite -sts_ownS_op; [|by eauto with sts..].
apply sts_own_weaken; first done.
{ rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver+. }
apply sts.closed_op; [by eauto..|set_solver|].
apply sts.closed_op; [by eauto with sts..|].
apply (non_empty_inhabited (State Low ({[i1]} ({[i2]} (I {[i]}))))).
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver+.
* rewrite {1}[heap_ctx _]always_sep_dup !assoc [(_ heap_ctx _)%I]comm -!assoc. apply sep_mono_r.
......@@ -433,28 +456,12 @@ Section proof.
apply sep_intro_True_r; first done.
{ rewrite -later_intro. apply wand_intro_l. by rewrite right_id. }
(* Case II: High state. TODO: Lots of this script is just copy-n-paste of the previous one.
Some of that ist because stuff should be more trivial than it is (like sts_ownS_op
having a too strong precondition, see the TODO over there); some of that
is because the goals a fairly simioar in structure, and the proof scripts
are mostlx concerned with manually managaing the structure (assoc, comm, dup) of
Most of that is because the goals are fairly similar in structure, and the proof scripts
are mostly concerned with manually managaing the structure (assoc, comm, dup) of
the context. *)
- rewrite -(exist_intro (State High ({[i1]} ({[i2]} (I {[i]}))))).
rewrite -(exist_intro ({[Change i1 ]} {[ Change i2 ]})).
rewrite const_equiv; last first.
(* This is exactly the same proof as above. Really, this should all be automated to be simple...
but if we can't get that, at least factor it out as a lemma? *)
{ apply rtc_once. constructor; first constructor; rewrite /= /tok /=; first set_solver.
(* This gets annoying... and I think I can see a pattern with all these proofs. Automatable? *)
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
naive_solver.
- apply elem_of_equiv=>t. destruct t as [j|]; last set_solver.
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /change_tokens /=.
rewrite !elem_of_union !elem_of_difference !elem_of_singleton.
destruct (decide (i1 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i2 = j)); first naive_solver.
destruct (decide (i = j)); naive_solver. }
rewrite const_equiv; last by eauto with sts.
rewrite left_id -later_intro {1 3}/barrier_inv.
rewrite -(ress_split _ _ _ Q R1 R2); [|done..].
match goal with | |- _ ?G => rewrite [G]lock end.
......@@ -478,10 +485,10 @@ Section proof.
do 2 rewrite !(assoc ()%I) [(_ sts_ownS _ _ _)%I]comm.
rewrite -!assoc. rewrite [(sts_ownS _ _ _ _ _)%I]assoc -pvs_frame_r.
apply sep_mono.
* rewrite -sts_ownS_op; [|set_solver|by eauto..].
* rewrite -sts_ownS_op; [|by eauto with sts..].
apply sts_own_weaken; first done.
{ rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver+. }
apply sts.closed_op; [by eauto..|set_solver|].
apply sts.closed_op; [by eauto with sts..|].
apply (non_empty_inhabited (State High ({[i1]} ({[i2]} (I {[i]}))))).
rewrite !mkSet_elem_of /=. set_solver+.
* rewrite {1}[heap_ctx _]always_sep_dup !assoc [(_ heap_ctx _)%I]comm -!assoc. apply sep_mono_r.
......
......@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
(** Finite maps associate data to keys. This file defines an interface for
finite maps and collects some theory on it. Most importantly, it proves useful
induction principles for finite maps and implements the tactic
[simplify_map_equality] to simplify goals involving finite maps. *)
[simplify_map_eq] to simplify goals involving finite maps. *)
From Coq Require Import Permutation.
From prelude Require Export relations vector orders.
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment