stdpp merge requestshttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests2021-10-26T12:51:32Zhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/329Mark set_size and set_fold as TC opaque2021-10-26T12:51:32ZPaolo G. GiarrussoMark set_size and set_fold as TC opaqueUpdated according to suggestions.
-------
Old title/description:
More TC opaqueness (appropriate???)
Take these as questions, and feel free to edit/close/... . Follow up from https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/328.Updated according to suggestions.
-------
Old title/description:
More TC opaqueness (appropriate???)
Take these as questions, and feel free to edit/close/... . Follow up from https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/328.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/328fin_sets: add missing Params instance for `set_map`2021-10-05T18:27:36ZPaolo G. Giarrussofin_sets: add missing Params instance for `set_map`Noticed from VERY slow rewrites.Noticed from VERY slow rewrites.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/327countable.v: prove choose_proper2021-11-05T17:07:35ZPaolo G. Giarrussocountable.v: prove choose_proper~~Needs the misplaced `Acc_rect_max`.~~
Add missing properness lemma for choose.
Very first step towards "Pragmatic quotients" (haven't done the others yet), but meaningful on its own.~~Needs the misplaced `Acc_rect_max`.~~
Add missing properness lemma for choose.
Very first step towards "Pragmatic quotients" (haven't done the others yet), but meaningful on its own.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/326f_equiv: slightly better support for function relations2021-09-27T14:17:27ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgf_equiv: slightly better support for function relationsThis makes f_equiv more powerful: with it we can solve goals of the form `f x ≡ g x` where `f, g: X -d> OFE` and `f ≡ g`. We still make no attempt at solving goals where the arguments are different. I think in all cases where this applie...This makes f_equiv more powerful: with it we can solve goals of the form `f x ≡ g x` where `f, g: X -d> OFE` and `f ≡ g`. We still make no attempt at solving goals where the arguments are different. I think in all cases where this applies, it will finish the proof, so I added a `solve`.
I also added the testcases from https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/commit/d16ab1aaa77ed3a9b052d12496d92c102288b704.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/325f_equiv optimizations2021-10-02T15:12:18ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgf_equiv optimizationsThis makes f_equiv a lot faster.
The first commit is inspired by looking at [this line](https://github.com/mit-pdos/perennial/blob/3ebb6f05456e2378e687e7eb99c30001930ff396/src/program_logic/crash_weakestpre.v#L105) in Perennial: the ver...This makes f_equiv a lot faster.
The first commit is inspired by looking at [this line](https://github.com/mit-pdos/perennial/blob/3ebb6f05456e2378e687e7eb99c30001930ff396/src/program_logic/crash_weakestpre.v#L105) in Perennial: the very first f_equiv there takes 30s. 20s of that are spent in `simple apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f)`, where `f` is `bi_and <some complicated term>` -- basically is tries to treat bi_and as a unary function and takes forever to realize that will not work. There is no TC trace for this, so this must be all unification time. By changing the pattern for this arm from `?R (?f _) _` to `?R (?f _) (?f _)` we avoid entering it unless things match *syntactically*. This seeds up the first f_equiv from 30s to 10s.
The second commit is born from looking at that same line more, and also looking at [the equivalent line in Iris itself](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/blob/467fa48bc66c2f2459f379a69fd9a41840599e23/iris/program_logic/weakestpre.v#L122): according to the ltac profiler, almost all time is spent in `try simple apply reflexivity` -- again, unification of inequal terms being very slow. So we now do entirely syntactic unification before even trying this. This speeds up the `do 23 (f_contractive || f_equiv)` in Iris from 1.3s to 0.6s, and it speeds up the `do 22 (f_contractive || f_equiv)` in Perennial to 0.75s from originally 42s (22s after the previous commit) -- a whopping 50x overall improvement!
Later commits slightly relax this to fix compatibility, so the fallback cases now do perform unification to match up the functions on the left-hand and right-hand side -- but this barely slows down the benchmarks mentioned above since they do not usually hit those cases. In fact, both in the Iris and Perennial case, 66% of the time is now spent in `f_contractive`.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/324add size_difference2021-09-10T15:07:06ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd size_differencehttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/323add size_set_seq2021-09-13T21:16:30ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd size_set_seqhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/322Revert "Merge branch 'robbert/sprop' into 'master'"2021-09-08T21:26:20ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgRevert "Merge branch 'robbert/sprop' into 'master'"This reverts merge request !309. It turned out to be a breaking change due to shadowing imports, and also cause performance regression in at least one case (see https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/732#note_73457).This reverts merge request !309. It turned out to be a breaking change due to shadowing imports, and also cause performance regression in at least one case (see https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/732#note_73457).https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/321add map_size_disj_union2021-09-05T02:48:55ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd map_size_disj_unionhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/320relate size of map to size of its domain2021-09-05T03:04:45ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgrelate size of map to size of its domainhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/319add lemma list_in_dec2021-09-06T18:03:40ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd lemma list_in_decI think this lemma is by @haidang, but it might also be by @lgaeher.
Maybe this should be an `Instance`? Not sure.I think this lemma is by @haidang, but it might also be by @lgaeher.
Maybe this should be an `Instance`? Not sure.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/318treat Forall2 constructors like we treat Forall constructors2021-09-06T16:19:42ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgtreat Forall2 constructors like we treat Forall constructorsIn particular, have a lemma `Forall2_cons` that is an `↔`.
For consistency, rename `Forall2_cons_inv` to `Forall2_cons_1` (matching `Forall_cons_1`).
Someone should probably do the same for `Forall3`...In particular, have a lemma `Forall2_cons` that is an `↔`.
For consistency, rename `Forall2_cons_inv` to `Forall2_cons_1` (matching `Forall_cons_1`).
Someone should probably do the same for `Forall3`...https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/317bring back some empty_inv lemmas for rewriting2021-07-28T17:51:12ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgbring back some empty_inv lemmas for rewritingSee discussion at https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/307#note_72408See discussion at https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/307#note_72408https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/316relations lemmas2021-07-28T15:21:24ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgrelations lemmasFound the `ex_loop` lemmas in Simuliris. Simuliris dos not actually need them any more, but they seem useful enough.
Proofs by @simonspies.Found the `ex_loop` lemmas in Simuliris. Simuliris dos not actually need them any more, but they seem useful enough.
Proofs by @simonspies.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/315add some lookup_{union,difference} lemmas2021-07-28T15:17:36ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd some lookup_{union,difference} lemmasmore things from Simuliris
- `lookup_union_Some_l_inv`, `lookup_union_Some_r_inv` allow exploiting statements of the form `(m1 ∪ m2) !! i = Some x`.
- `lookup_union_is_Some`, `lookup_difference_is_Some` match the existing `lookup_insert...more things from Simuliris
- `lookup_union_Some_l_inv`, `lookup_union_Some_r_inv` allow exploiting statements of the form `(m1 ∪ m2) !! i = Some x`.
- `lookup_union_is_Some`, `lookup_difference_is_Some` match the existing `lookup_insert_is_Some`.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/314add insert_map_seq_02021-07-28T13:43:58ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd insert_map_seq_0another bit from Simuliris, original proof by @msammleranother bit from Simuliris, original proof by @msammlerhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/313add lookup_take_Some2021-07-28T13:43:44ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd lookup_take_Someanother bit from Simuliris, original proof by @msammleranother bit from Simuliris, original proof by @msammlerhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/312add binder_list2021-07-28T13:43:27ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd binder_listanother bit from Simulirisanother bit from Simulirishttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/311add get_head tactic and use it in solve_proper_unfold2021-07-28T14:24:42ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd get_head tactic and use it in solve_proper_unfoldTactic taken from Simuliris, originally written by @msammler.Tactic taken from Simuliris, originally written by @msammler.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/310Generalize `map_filter_insert` so that it covers both the True and False case.2021-07-28T07:08:19ZRobbert KrebbersGeneralize `map_filter_insert` so that it covers both the True and False case.The new lemma is
```coq
Lemma map_filter_insert m i x :
filter P (<[i:=x]> m)
= if decide (P (i, x)) then <[i:=x]> (filter P m) else filter P (delete i m).
```
We need the `delete` because there might be another entry with key `i` ...The new lemma is
```coq
Lemma map_filter_insert m i x :
filter P (<[i:=x]> m)
= if decide (P (i, x)) then <[i:=x]> (filter P m) else filter P (delete i m).
```
We need the `delete` because there might be another entry with key `i` in `m`.
In addition there are the lemmas:
```coq
Lemma map_filter_insert_True m i x : (* used to be map_filter_insert *)
P (i, x) → filter P (<[i:=x]> m) = <[i:=x]> (filter P m).
Lemma map_filter_insert_False m i x : (* used to be map_filter_insert_not_delete *)
¬ P (i, x) → filter P (<[i:=x]> m) = filter P (delete i m).
```
I use the `_True` and `_False` suffixes similar to `decide_True` and `decide_False`.
See discussion in https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/245?commit_id=335bc4d65a65bfeb247fa86853b057920c44feb0#note_72118 for the discussion that led to this MR.