program-logic.tex 18.3 KB
Newer Older
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
1
2
\let\bar\overline

3
\section{Language}
4
\label{sec:language}
5
6
7
8
9
10

A \emph{language} $\Lang$ consists of a set \textdom{Expr} of \emph{expressions} (metavariable $\expr$), a set \textdom{Val} of \emph{values} (metavariable $\val$), and a set \textdom{State} of \emph{states} (metvariable $\state$) such that
\begin{itemize}
\item There exist functions $\ofval : \textdom{Val} \to \textdom{Expr}$ and $\toval : \textdom{Expr} \pfn \textdom{val}$ (notice the latter is partial), such that
\begin{mathpar} {\All \expr, \val. \toval(\expr) = \val \Ra \ofval(\val) = \expr} \and {\All\val. \toval(\ofval(\val)) = \val} 
\end{mathpar}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
11
12
13
\item There exists a \emph{primitive reduction relation} \[(-,- \step -,-,-) \subseteq \textdom{Expr} \times \textdom{State} \times \textdom{Expr} \times \textdom{State} \times (\cup_n \textdom{Expr}^n)\]
  A reduction $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \overline\expr$ indicates that, when $\expr_1$ reduces to $\expr_2$, the new threads in the list $\overline\expr$ is forked off.
  We will write $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2$ for $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, ()$, \ie when no threads are forked off. \\
14
15
16
17
18
19
\item All values are stuck:
\[ \expr, \_ \step  \_, \_, \_ \Ra \toval(\expr) = \bot \]
\end{itemize}

\begin{defn}
  An expression $\expr$ and state $\state$ are \emph{reducible} (written $\red(\expr, \state)$) if
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
20
  \[ \Exists \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr. \expr,\state \step \expr_2,\state_2,\bar\expr \]
21
22
23
24
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
  An expression $\expr$ is said to be \emph{atomic} if it reduces in one step to a value:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
25
  \[ \All\state_1, \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr. \expr, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr \Ra \Exists \val_2. \toval(\expr_2) = \val_2 \]
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}[Context]
  A function $\lctx : \textdom{Expr} \to \textdom{Expr}$ is a \emph{context} if the following conditions are satisfied:
  \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0pt]
  \item $\lctx$ does not turn non-values into values:\\
    $\All\expr. \toval(\expr) = \bot \Ra \toval(\lctx(\expr)) = \bot $
  \item One can perform reductions below $\lctx$:\\
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
34
    $\All \expr_1, \state_1, \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr. \expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2,\state_2,\bar\expr \Ra \lctx(\expr_1), \state_1 \step \lctx(\expr_2),\state_2,\bar\expr $
35
  \item Reductions stay below $\lctx$ until there is a value in the hole:\\
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
36
    $\All \expr_1', \state_1, \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr. \toval(\expr_1') = \bot \land \lctx(\expr_1'), \state_1 \step \expr_2,\state_2,\bar\expr \Ra \Exists\expr_2'. \expr_2 = \lctx(\expr_2') \land \expr_1', \state_1 \step \expr_2',\state_2,\bar\expr $
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
  \end{enumerate}
\end{defn}

\subsection{Concurrent language}

For any language $\Lang$, we define the corresponding thread-pool semantics.

\paragraph{Machine syntax}
\[
	\tpool \in \textdom{ThreadPool} \eqdef \bigcup_n \textdom{Expr}^n
\]

\judgment[Machine reduction]{\cfg{\tpool}{\state} \step
  \cfg{\tpool'}{\state'}}
\begin{mathpar}
\infer
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
53
  {\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \bar\expr}
54
  {\cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_1] \dplus \tpool'}{\state_1} \step
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
55
     \cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_2] \dplus \tpool' \dplus \bar\expr}{\state_2}}
56
57
58
59
\end{mathpar}

\clearpage
\section{Program Logic}
60
\label{sec:program-logic}
61

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
62
This section describes how to build a program logic for an arbitrary language (\cf \Sref{sec:language}) on top of the logic described in \Sref{sec:hogs}.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
63
So in the following, we assume that some language $\Lang$ was fixed.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83

\subsection{World Satisfaction, Invariants, View Shifts}

To introduce invariants into our logic, we will define weakest precondition to explicitly thread through the proof that all the invariants are maintained throughout program execution.
However, in order to be able to access invariants, we will also have to provide a way to \emph{temporarily disable} (or ``open'') them.
To this end, we use tokens that manage which invariants are currently enabled.

We assume to have the following four CMRAs available:
\begin{align*}
  \textmon{State} \eqdef{}& \authm(\exm(\textdom{State})) \\
  \textmon{Inv} \eqdef{}& \authm(\mathbb N \fpfn \agm(\latert \iPreProp)) \\
  \textmon{En} \eqdef{}& \pset{\mathbb N} \\
  \textmon{Dis} \eqdef{}& \finpset{\mathbb N}
\end{align*}
The last two are the tokens used for managing invariants, $\textmon{Inv}$ is the monoid used to manage the invariants themselves.
Finally, $\textmon{State}$ is used to provide the program with a view of the physical state of the machine.

Furthermore, we assume that instances named $\gname_{\textmon{State}}$, $\gname_{\textmon{Inv}}$, $\gname_{\textmon{En}}$ and $\gname_{\textmon{Dis}}$ of these CMRAs have been created.
(We will discuss later how this assumption is discharged.)

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
84
\paragraph{World Satisfaction.}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
85
86
We can now define the assertion $W$ (\emph{world satisfaction}) which ensures that the enabled invariants are actually maintained:
\begin{align*}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
  W \eqdef{}& \Exists I : \mathbb N \fpfn \Prop. \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{Inv}}}{\authfull \aginj(\latertinj(\wIso(I)))} * \Sep_{\iname \in \dom(I)} \left( \later I(\iname) * \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{Dis}}}{\set{\iname}} \lor \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{En}}}{\set{\iname}} \right)
\end{align*}

\paragraph{Invariants.}
The following assertion states that an invariant with name $\iname$ exists and maintains assertion $\prop$:
\[ \knowInv\iname\prop \eqdef \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{Inv}}}{\authfrag \aginj(\latertinj(\wIso(\prop)))} \]

\paragraph{View Shifts.}
Next, we define \emph{view updates}, which are essentially the same as the resource updates of the base logic ($\Sref{sec:base-logic}$), except that they also have access to world satisfaction and can enable and disable invariants:
\[ \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \prop \eqdef W * \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{En}}}{\mask_1} \wand W * \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{En}}}{\mask_2} * \prop \]
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
97
98
Here, $\mask_1$ and $\mask_2$ are the \emph{masks} of the view update, defining which invariants have to be (at least!) available before and after the update.
We will write $\top$ for the largest possible mask, $\mathbb N$.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

We further define the notions of \emph{view shifts} and \emph{linear view shifts}:
\begin{align*}
  \prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \eqdef{}& \always(\prop \Ra \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB) \\
  \prop \vsW[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \eqdef{}& \prop \wand \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB
\end{align*}

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
106
107
We will write $\pvs[\mask] \prop$ for $\pvs[\mask][\mask]\prop$, and similar for the view shifts.

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
\ralf{Show some proof rules.}

\subsection{Hoare Triples}

Finally, we can define the core piece of the program logic, the assertion that reasons about program behavior: Weakest precondition, from which Hoare triples will be derived.
We assume that everything making up the definition of the language, \ie values, expressions, states, the conversion functions, reduction relation and all their properties, are suitably reflected into the logic (\ie they are part of the signature $\Sig$).

\begin{align*}
  \textdom{pre-wp}(\textdom{wp})(\mask, \expr, \pred) \eqdef{}&
    (\Exists\val. \toval(\expr) = \val \land \pvs[\mask] \prop) \lor {}\\
        &\Bigl(\toval(\expr) = \bot \land \All \state. \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{State}}}{\authfull \state} \vsW[\mask][\emptyset] {}\\
        &\qquad \red(\expr, \state) * \later\All \expr', \state', \bar\expr. (\expr, \state \step \expr', \state', \bar\expr) \vsW[\emptyset][\mask] {}\\
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
120
        &\qquad\qquad \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{State}}}{\authfull \state'} * \textdom{wp}(\mask, \expr', \pred) * \Sep_{\expr'' \in \bar\expr} \textdom{wp}(\top, \expr'', \Lam \any. \TRUE)\Bigr) \\
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
121
122
%  (* value case *)
  \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\val. \prop} \eqdef{}& (\MU \textdom{wp}. \textdom{pre-wp}(\textdom{wp}))(\mask, \expr, \Lam\val.\prop)
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
123
\end{align*}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
124
If we leave away the mask, we assume it to default to $\top$.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
125

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
This ties the authoritative part of \textmon{State} to the actual physical state of the reduction witnessed by the weakest precondition.
The fragment will then be available to the user of the logic, as their way of talking about the physical state:
\[ \ownPhys\state \eqdef \ownGhost{\gname_{\textmon{State}}}{\authfrag \state} \]

It turns out that weakest precondition is actually quite convenient to work with, in particular when perfoming these proofs on paper.
Still, for a more traditional presentation, we can easily derive the notion of a Hoare triple:
\[
\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask] \eqdef \always{(\prop \Ra \wpre{\expr}[\mask]{\lambda\Ret\val.\propB})}
\]
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
135
136

\subsection{Lost stuff}
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
\ralf{TODO: Right now, this is a dump of all the things that moved out of the base...}


We will write $\pvs[\term] \prop$ for $\pvs[\term][\term] \prop$.
If we omit the mask, then it is $\top$ for weakest precondition $\wpre\expr{\Ret\var.\prop}$ and $\emptyset$ for primitive view shifts $\pvs \prop$.
%FIXME $\top$ is not a term in the logic. Neither is any of the operations on masks that we use in the rules for weakestpre.

Some propositions are \emph{timeless}, which intuitively means that step-indexing does not affect them.
This is a \emph{meta-level} assertion about propositions, defined as follows:

\[ \vctx \proves \timeless{\prop} \eqdef \vctx\mid\later\prop \proves \prop \lor \later\FALSE \]

\paragraph{Metavariable conventions.}
We introduce additional metavariables ranging over terms and generally let the choice of metavariable indicate the term's type:
\[
\begin{array}{r|l}
 \text{metavariable} & \text{type} \\\hline
  \term, \termB & \text{arbitrary} \\
  \val, \valB & \textlog{Val} \\
  \expr & \textlog{Expr} \\
  \state & \textlog{State} \\
\end{array}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{array}{r|l}
 \text{metavariable} & \text{type} \\\hline
  \iname & \textlog{InvName} \\
  \mask & \textlog{InvMask} \\
  \melt, \meltB & \textlog{M} \\
  \prop, \propB, \propC & \Prop \\
  \pred, \predB, \predC & \type\to\Prop \text{ (when $\type$ is clear from context)} \\
\end{array}
\]

\begin{mathpar}
\infer
{\text{$\term$ or $\term'$ is a discrete COFE element}}
{\timeless{\term =_\type \term'}}

\infer
{\text{$\melt$ is a discrete COFE element}}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
177
{\timeless{\ownM\melt}}
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236

\infer
{\text{$\melt$ is an element of a discrete CMRA}}
{\timeless{\mval(\melt)}}

\infer{}
{\timeless{\ownPhys\state}}

\infer
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\propB}}
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\prop \Ra \propB}}

\infer
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\propB}}
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\prop \wand \propB}}

\infer
{\vctx,\var:\type \proves \timeless{\prop}}
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\All\var:\type.\prop}}

\infer
{\vctx,\var:\type \proves \timeless{\prop}}
{\vctx \proves \timeless{\Exists\var:\type.\prop}}
\end{mathpar}

\begin{mathpar}
\infer[pvs-intro]
{}{\prop \proves \pvs[\mask] \prop}

\infer[pvs-mono]
{\prop \proves \propB}
{\pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \prop \proves \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB}

\infer[pvs-timeless]
{\timeless\prop}
{\later\prop \proves \pvs[\mask] \prop}

\infer[pvs-trans]
{\mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1 \cup \mask_3}
{\pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \pvs[\mask_2][\mask_3] \prop \proves \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_3] \prop}

\infer[pvs-mask-frame]
{}{\pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \prop \proves \pvs[\mask_1 \uplus \mask_\f][\mask_2 \uplus \mask_\f] \prop}

\infer[pvs-frame]
{}{\propB * \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2]\prop \proves \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB * \prop}

\inferH{pvs-allocI}
{\text{$\mask$ is infinite}}
{\later\prop \proves \pvs[\mask] \Exists \iname \in \mask. \knowInv\iname\prop}

\inferH{pvs-openI}
{}{\knowInv\iname\prop \proves \pvs[\set\iname][\emptyset] \later\prop}

\inferH{pvs-closeI}
{}{\knowInv\iname\prop \land \later\prop \proves \pvs[\emptyset][\set\iname] \TRUE}

\inferH{pvs-update}
{\melt \mupd \meltsB}
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
237
{\ownM\melt \proves \pvs[\mask] \Exists\meltB\in\meltsB. \ownM\meltB}
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
\end{mathpar}

\paragraph{Laws of weakest preconditions.}
\begin{mathpar}
\infer[wp-value]
{}{\prop[\val/\var] \proves \wpre{\val}[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop}}

\infer[wp-mono]
{\mask_1 \subseteq \mask_2 \and \var:\textlog{val}\mid\prop \proves \propB}
{\wpre\expr[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop} \proves \wpre\expr[\mask_2]{\Ret\var.\propB}}

\infer[pvs-wp]
{}{\pvs[\mask] \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop} \proves \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop}}

\infer[wp-pvs]
{}{\wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\pvs[\mask] \prop} \proves \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop}}

\infer[wp-atomic]
{\mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1 \and \physatomic{\expr}}
{\pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \wpre\expr[\mask_2]{\Ret\var. \pvs[\mask_2][\mask_1]\prop}
 \proves \wpre\expr[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop}}

\infer[wp-frame]
{}{\propB * \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop} \proves \wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\propB*\prop}}

\infer[wp-frame-step]
{\toval(\expr) = \bot \and \mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1}
{\wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop} * \pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2]\later\pvs[\mask_2][\mask_1]\propB \proves \wpre\expr[\mask \uplus \mask_1]{\Ret\var.\propB*\prop}}

\infer[wp-bind]
{\text{$\lctx$ is a context}}
{\wpre\expr[\mask]{\Ret\var. \wpre{\lctx(\ofval(\var))}[\mask]{\Ret\varB.\prop}} \proves \wpre{\lctx(\expr)}[\mask]{\Ret\varB.\prop}}
\end{mathpar}

\paragraph{Lifting of operational semantics.}~
\begin{mathpar}
  \infer[wp-lift-step]
  {\mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1 \and
   \toval(\expr_1) = \bot}
  { {\begin{inbox} % for some crazy reason, LaTeX is actually sensitive to the space between the "{ {" here and the "} }" below...
        ~~\pvs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \Exists \state_1. \red(\expr_1,\state_1) \land \later\ownPhys{\state_1} * {}\\\qquad\qquad\qquad \later\All \expr_2, \state_2, \expr_\f. \left( (\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \expr_\f) \land \ownPhys{\state_2} \right) \wand \pvs[\mask_2][\mask_1] \wpre{\expr_2}[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop} * \wpre{\expr_\f}[\top]{\Ret\any.\TRUE}  {}\\\proves \wpre{\expr_1}[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop}
      \end{inbox}} }
\\\\
  \infer[wp-lift-pure-step]
  {\toval(\expr_1) = \bot \and
   \All \state_1. \red(\expr_1, \state_1) \and
   \All \state_1, \expr_2, \state_2, \expr_\f. \expr_1,\state_1 \step \expr_2,\state_2,\expr_\f \Ra \state_1 = \state_2 }
  {\later\All \state, \expr_2, \expr_\f. (\expr_1,\state \step \expr_2, \state,\expr_\f)  \Ra \wpre{\expr_2}[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop} * \wpre{\expr_\f}[\top]{\Ret\any.\TRUE} \proves \wpre{\expr_1}[\mask_1]{\Ret\var.\prop}}
\end{mathpar}
Notice that primitive view shifts cover everything to their right, \ie $\pvs \prop * \propB \eqdef \pvs (\prop * \propB)$.

Here we define $\wpre{\expr_\f}[\mask]{\Ret\var.\prop} \eqdef \TRUE$ if $\expr_\f = \bot$ (remember that our stepping relation can, but does not have to, define a forked-off expression).

The adequacy statement concerning functional correctness reads as follows:
\begin{align*}
 &\All \mask, \expr, \val, \pred, \state, \melt, \state', \tpool'.
 \\&(\All n. \melt \in \mval_n) \Ra
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
295
 \\&( \ownPhys\state * \ownM\melt \proves \wpre{\expr}[\mask]{x.\; \pred(x)}) \Ra
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
 \\&\cfg{\state}{[\expr]} \step^\ast
     \cfg{\state'}{[\val] \dplus \tpool'} \Ra
     \\&\pred(\val)
\end{align*}
where $\pred$ is a \emph{meta-level} predicate over values, \ie it can mention neither resources nor invariants.

Furthermore, the following adequacy statement shows that our weakest preconditions imply that the execution never gets \emph{stuck}: Every expression in the thread pool either is a value, or can reduce further.
\begin{align*}
 &\All \mask, \expr, \state, \melt, \state', \tpool'.
 \\&(\All n. \melt \in \mval_n) \Ra
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
306
 \\&( \ownPhys\state * \ownM\melt \proves \wpre{\expr}[\mask]{x.\; \pred(x)}) \Ra
307
308
309
310
311
312
 \\&\cfg{\state}{[\expr]} \step^\ast
     \cfg{\state'}{\tpool'} \Ra
     \\&\All\expr'\in\tpool'. \toval(\expr') \neq \bot \lor \red(\expr', \state')
\end{align*}
Notice that this is stronger than saying that the thread pool can reduce; we actually assert that \emph{every} non-finished thread can take a step.

Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
\subsection{Iris model}

\paragraph{Semantic domain of assertions.}



\paragraph{Interpretation of assertions.}
$\iProp$ is a $\UPred$, and hence the definitions from \Sref{sec:upred-logic} apply.
We only have to define the interpretation of the missing connectives, the most interesting bits being primitive view shifts and weakest preconditions.

\typedsection{World satisfaction}{\wsat{-}{-}{-} : 
	\Delta\textdom{State} \times
	\Delta\pset{\mathbb{N}} \times
	\textdom{Res} \nfn \SProp }
\begin{align*}
  \wsatpre(n, \mask, \state, \rss, \rs) & \eqdef \begin{inbox}[t]
    \rs \in \mval_{n+1} \land \rs.\pres = \exinj(\sigma) \land 
    \dom(\rss) \subseteq \mask \cap \dom( \rs.\wld) \land {}\\
    \All\iname \in \mask, \prop \in \iProp. (\rs.\wld)(\iname) \nequiv{n+1} \aginj(\latertinj(\wIso(\prop))) \Ra n \in \prop(\rss(\iname))
  \end{inbox}\\
	\wsat{\state}{\mask}{\rs} &\eqdef \set{0}\cup\setComp{n+1}{\Exists \rss : \mathbb{N} \fpfn \textdom{Res}. \wsatpre(n, \mask, \state, \rss, \rs \mtimes \prod_\iname \rss(\iname))}
\end{align*}

\typedsection{Primitive view-shift}{\mathit{pvs}_{-}^{-}(-) : \Delta(\pset{\mathbb{N}}) \times \Delta(\pset{\mathbb{N}}) \times \iProp \nfn \iProp}
\begin{align*}
	\mathit{pvs}_{\mask_1}^{\mask_2}(\prop) &= \Lam \rs. \setComp{n}{\begin{aligned}
            \All \rs_\f, k, \mask_\f, \state.& 0 < k \leq n \land (\mask_1 \cup \mask_2) \disj \mask_\f \land k \in \wsat\state{\mask_1 \cup \mask_\f}{\rs \mtimes \rs_\f} \Ra {}\\&
            \Exists \rsB. k \in \prop(\rsB) \land k \in \wsat\state{\mask_2 \cup \mask_\f}{\rsB \mtimes \rs_\f}
          \end{aligned}}
\end{align*}

\typedsection{Weakest precondition}{\mathit{wp}_{-}(-, -) : \Delta(\pset{\mathbb{N}}) \times \Delta(\textdom{Exp}) \times (\Delta(\textdom{Val}) \nfn \iProp) \nfn \iProp}

$\textdom{wp}$ is defined as the fixed-point of a contractive function.
\begin{align*}
  \textdom{pre-wp}(\textdom{wp})(\mask, \expr, \pred) &\eqdef \Lam\rs. \setComp{n}{\begin{aligned}
        \All &\rs_\f, m, \mask_\f, \state. 0 \leq m < n \land \mask \disj \mask_\f \land m+1 \in \wsat\state{\mask \cup \mask_\f}{\rs \mtimes \rs_\f} \Ra {}\\
        &(\All\val. \toval(\expr) = \val \Ra \Exists \rsB. m+1 \in \pred(\val)(\rsB) \land m+1 \in \wsat\state{\mask \cup \mask_\f}{\rsB \mtimes \rs_\f}) \land {}\\
        &(\toval(\expr) = \bot \land 0 < m \Ra \red(\expr, \state) \land \All \expr_2, \state_2, \expr_\f. \expr,\state \step \expr_2,\state_2,\expr_\f \Ra {}\\
        &\qquad \Exists \rsB_1, \rsB_2. m \in \wsat\state{\mask \cup \mask_\f}{\rsB_1 \mtimes \rsB_2 \mtimes \rs_\f} \land  m \in \textdom{wp}(\mask, \expr_2, \pred)(\rsB_1) \land {}&\\
        &\qquad\qquad (\expr_\f = \bot \lor m \in \textdom{wp}(\top, \expr_\f, \Lam\any.\Lam\any.\mathbb{N})(\rsB_2))
    \end{aligned}} \\
  \textdom{wp}_\mask(\expr, \pred) &\eqdef \mathit{fix}(\textdom{pre-wp})(\mask, \expr, \pred)
\end{align*}


359
360
361
362
363

%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "iris"
%%% End: