Commit a39b10c9 by Robbert Krebbers

### Merge branch 'master' of gitlab.mpi-sws.org:FP/iris-coq

 ... ... @@ -256,22 +256,28 @@ Ltac f_equiv := let H := fresh "Proper" in assert (Proper (R ==> R ==> R) f) as H by (eapply _); apply H; clear H; f_equiv (* Next, try to infer the relation *) (* Next, try to infer the relation. Unfortunately, there is an instance of Proper for (eq ==> _), which will always be matched. *) (* TODO: Can we exclude that instance? *) (* TODO: If some of the arguments are the same, we could also query for "pointwise_relation"'s. But that leads to a combinatorial explosion about which arguments are and which are not the same. *) | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => let R1 := fresh "R" in let H := fresh "Proper" in let R1 := fresh "R" in let H := fresh "HProp" in let T := type of x in evar (R1: relation T); assert (Proper (R1 ==> R) f) as H by (subst R1; eapply _); subst R1; apply H; clear H; f_equiv | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => let R1 := fresh "R" in let R2 := fresh "R" in let H := fresh "Proper" in let H := fresh "HProp" in let T1 := type of x in evar (R1: relation T1); let T2 := type of y in evar (R2: relation T2); assert (Proper (R1 ==> R2 ==> R) f) as H by (subst R1 R2; eapply _); subst R1 R2; apply H; clear H; f_equiv (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same, maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *) | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) => apply H; f_equiv end | idtac (* Let the user solve this goal *) ]. ... ... @@ -288,6 +294,10 @@ Ltac solve_proper := end; (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *) lazymatch goal with | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _) (?f _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _) (?f _ _) => unfold f ... ...
 ... ... @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Section auth. Implicit Types γ : gname. Global Instance auth_own_ne n γ : Proper (dist n ==> dist n) (auth_own γ). Proof. by rewrite auth_own_eq /auth_own_def=> a b ->. Qed. Proof. rewrite auth_own_eq; solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance auth_own_proper γ : Proper ((≡) ==> (≡)) (auth_own γ). Proof. by rewrite auth_own_eq /auth_own_def=> a b ->. Qed. Global Instance auth_own_timeless γ a : TimelessP (auth_own γ a). ... ...
 ... ... @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Local Hint Extern 10 (✓{_} _) => | H : wsat _ _ _ _ |- _ => apply wsat_valid in H; last omega end; solve_validN. (* TODO: Consider sealing this, like all the definitions in upred.v. *) Program Definition pvs {Λ Σ} (E1 E2 : coPset) (P : iProp Λ Σ) : iProp Λ Σ := {| uPred_holds n r1 := ∀ rf k Ef σ, 0 < k ≤ n → (E1 ∪ E2) ∩ Ef = ∅ → ... ...
 ... ... @@ -52,22 +52,20 @@ Section sts. (** Setoids *) Global Instance sts_inv_ne n γ : Proper (pointwise_relation _ (dist n) ==> dist n) (sts_inv γ). Proof. by intros φ1 φ2 Hφ; rewrite /sts_inv; setoid_rewrite Hφ. Qed. Proof. solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance sts_inv_proper γ : Proper (pointwise_relation _ (≡) ==> (≡)) (sts_inv γ). Proof. by intros φ1 φ2 Hφ; rewrite /sts_inv; setoid_rewrite Hφ. Qed. Proof. solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance sts_ownS_proper γ : Proper ((≡) ==> (≡) ==> (≡)) (sts_ownS γ). Proof. intros S1 S2 HS T1 T2 HT. by rewrite !sts_ownS_eq /sts_ownS_def HS HT. Qed. Proof. rewrite sts_ownS_eq. solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance sts_own_proper γ s : Proper ((≡) ==> (≡)) (sts_own γ s). Proof. intros T1 T2 HT. by rewrite !sts_own_eq /sts_own_def HT. Qed. Proof. rewrite sts_own_eq. solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance sts_ctx_ne n γ N : Proper (pointwise_relation _ (dist n) ==> dist n) (sts_ctx γ N). Proof. by intros φ1 φ2 Hφ; rewrite /sts_ctx Hφ. Qed. Proof. solve_proper. Qed. Global Instance sts_ctx_proper γ N : Proper (pointwise_relation _ (≡) ==> (≡)) (sts_ctx γ N). Proof. by intros φ1 φ2 Hφ; rewrite /sts_ctx Hφ. Qed. Proof. solve_proper. Qed. (* The same rule as implication does *not* hold, as could be shown using sts_frag_included. *) ... ...
 ... ... @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ CoInductive wp_pre {Λ Σ} (E : coPset) wp_go (E ∪ Ef) (wp_pre E Φ) (wp_pre ⊤ (λ _, True%I)) k rf e1 σ1) → wp_pre E Φ e1 n r1. (* TODO: Consider sealing this, like all the definitions in upred.v. *) Program Definition wp {Λ Σ} (E : coPset) (e : expr Λ) (Φ : val Λ → iProp Λ Σ) : iProp Λ Σ := {| uPred_holds := wp_pre E Φ e |}. Next Obligation. ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!