 25 Oct, 2016 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
There are now two proof mode tactics for dealing with modalities:  `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality  `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality The behavior of these tactics can be controlled by instances of the `IntroModal` and `ElimModal` type class. We have declared instances for later, except 0, basic updates and fancy updates. The tactic `iMod` is flexible enough that it can also eliminate an updates around a weakest pre, and so forth. The corresponding introduction patterns of these tactics are `!>` and `>`. These tactics replace the tactics `iUpdIntro`, `iUpd` and `iTimeless`. Source of backwards incompatability: the introduction pattern `!>` is used for introduction of arbitrary modalities. It used to introduce laters by stripping of a later of each hypotheses.

Robbert Krebbers authored
And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.

 06 Oct, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 05 Oct, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 09 Sep, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
Before this commit, given "HP" : P and "H" : P ★ Q with Q persistent, one could write: iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP") to eliminate the wand in "H" while keeping the resource "HP". The lemma: own_valid : own γ x ⊢ ✓ x was the prototypical example where this pattern (using the #) was used. However, the pattern was too limited. For example, given "H" : P₁ ★ P₂ ★ Q", one could not write iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP₁") because P₂ ★ Q is not persistent, even when Q is. So, instead, this commit introduces the following tactic: iSpecialize pm_trm as # which allows one to eliminate implications and wands while being able to use all hypotheses to prove the premises, as well as being able to use all hypotheses to prove the resulting goal. In the case of iDestruct, we now check whether all branches of the introduction pattern start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the persistent context) or `%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context). If this is the case, we allow one to use all hypotheses for proving the premises, as well as for proving the resulting goal.

 06 Sep, 2016 3 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
I had to perform some renaming to avoid name clashes.

 26 Aug, 2016 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Zhen Zhang authored

 25 Aug, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
NB: these scopes delimiters were already there before Janno's a0067662.

 22 Aug, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This is more consistent with CAS, which also can be used on any value. Note that being able to (atomically) test for equality of any value and being able to CAS on any value is not realistic. See the discussion at https://gitlab.mpisws.org/FP/iriscoq/issues/26, and in particular JH Jourdan's observation: I think indeed for heap_lang this is just too complicated. Anyway, the role of heap_lang is not to model any actual programming language, but rather to show that we can do proofs about certain programs. The fact that you can write unrealistic programs is not a problem, IMHO. The only thing which is important is that the program that we write are realistic (i.e., faithfully represents the algorithm we want to p This commit is based on a commit by Zhen Zhang who generalized equality to work on any literal (and not just integers).

 09 Aug, 2016 2 commits


Zhen Zhang authored

Ralf Jung authored

 08 Aug, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This makes stuff more uniform and also removes the need for the [inGFs] type class. Instead, there is now a type class [subG Σ1 Σ2] which expresses that a list of functors [Σ1] is contained in [Σ2].

 05 Aug, 2016 3 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
This better reflects the name of the bind rule. I renamed an internal tactic that was previously called wp_bind into wp_bind_core.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This commit features:  A simpler model. The recursive domain equation no longer involves a triple containing invariants, physical state and ghost state, but just ghost state. Invariants and physical state are encoded using (higherorder) ghost state.  (Primitive) view shifts are formalized in the logic and all properties about it are proven in the logic instead of the model. Instead, the core logic features only a notion of raw view shifts which internalizing performing frame preserving updates.  A better behaved notion of mask changing view shifts. In particular, we no longer have sideconditions on transitivity of view shifts, and we have a rule for introduction of mask changing view shifts ={E1,E2}=> P with E2 ⊆ E1 which allows to postpone performing a view shift.  The weakest precondition connective is formalized in the logic using Banach's fixpoint. All properties about the connective are proven in the logic instead of directly in the model.  Adequacy is proven in the logic and uses a primitive form of adequacy for uPred that only involves raw views shifts and laters. Some remarks:  I have removed binary view shifts. I did not see a way to describe all rules of the new mask changing view shifts using those.  There is no longer the need for the notion of "frame shifting assertions" and these are thus removed. The rules for Hoare triples are thus also stated in terms of primitive view shifts. TODO:  Maybe rename primitive view shift into something more sensible  Figure out a way to deal with closed proofs (see the commented out stuff in tests/heap_lang and tests/barrier_client).

 02 Aug, 2016 3 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Zhen Zhang authored
