Skip to content
GitLab
Menu
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
Menu
Open sidebar
Joshua Yanovski
iriscoq
Commits
0c801b09
Commit
0c801b09
authored
Feb 09, 2016
by
Ralf Jung
Browse files
some comments
parent
f8efeaaf
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
program_logic/invariants.v
View file @
0c801b09
...
...
@@ 64,12 +64,13 @@ Global Instance inv_always_stable N P : AlwaysStable (inv N P) := _.
Lemma
always_inv
N
P
:
(
□
inv
N
P
)
%
I
≡
inv
N
P
.
Proof
.
by
rewrite
always_always
.
Qed
.
(
*
We
actually
pretty
much
lose
the
abolity
to
deal
with
mask

changing
view
shifts
when
using
`inv
`
.
This
is
because
we
cannot
exactly
name
the
invariants
any
more
.
But
that
'
s
okay
;
all
this
means
is
that
sugar
like
the
atomic
triples
will
have
to
prove
its
own
version
of
the
open_close
rule
by
unfolding
`inv
`
.
*
)
(
*
TODO
Can
we
prove
something
that
helps
for
both
open_close
lemmas
?
*
)
(
*
There
is
not
really
a
way
to
provide
versions
of
pvs_openI
and
pvs_closeI
that
work
with
inv
.
The
issue
is
that
these
rules
track
the
exact
current
mask
too
precisely
.
However
,
we
*
can
*
provide
abstract
rules
by
performing
both
the
opening
and
the
closing
of
the
invariant
in
the
rule
,
and
then
implicitly
framing
all
the
unused
invariants
around
the
"inner"
view
shift
provided
by
the
client
.
*
)
Lemma
pvs_open_close
E
N
P
Q
:
nclose
N
⊆
E
→
(
inv
N
P
∧
(
▷
P

★
pvs
(
E
∖
nclose
N
)
(
E
∖
nclose
N
)
(
▷
P
★
Q
)))
⊑
pvs
E
E
Q
.
...
...
program_logic/pviewshifts.v
View file @
0c801b09
...
...
@@ 158,6 +158,11 @@ Lemma pvs_mask_frame_mono E1 E1' E2 E2' P Q :
P
⊑
Q
→
pvs
E1
'
E2
'
P
⊑
pvs
E1
E2
Q
.
Proof
.
intros
HE1
HE2
HEE
>
.
by
apply
pvs_mask_frame
'
.
Qed
.
(
*
It
should
be
possible
to
give
a
stronger
version
of
this
rule
that
does
not
force
the
conclusion
view
shift
to
have
twice
the
same
mask
.
However
,
even
expressing
the
side

conditions
on
the
mask
becomes
really
ugly
then
,
and
we
have
now
found
an
instance
where
that
would
be
useful
.
*
)
Lemma
pvs_trans3
E1
E2
Q
:
E2
⊆
E1
→
pvs
E1
E2
(
pvs
E2
E2
(
pvs
E2
E1
Q
))
⊑
pvs
E1
E1
Q
.
Proof
.
...
...
Write
Preview
Supports
Markdown
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment