An Equivalence-Preserving CPS Translation via Multi-Language Semantics (Technical Appendix)
نویسندگان
چکیده
This appendix contains an extended discussion section (Section 1), an extended section on related work (Section 2), the complete set of technical definitions (Sections 3 to 7), and the proofs (Sections 8 to 13). In particular, in Section 1.3, we adopt System F without the CPS restriction as our target language and present the changes needed—to the back-translation and the proofs—to establish full abstraction in this setting.
منابع مشابه
Type - Preserving CPS Translation of Σ and Π Types is Not Not
Dependently typed languages like Coq are used to specify and prove functional correctness of source programs, but what we ultimately need are guarantees about correctness of compiled code. By preserving dependent types through each compiler pass, we could preserve source-level specifications and correctness proofs into the generated target-language programs. Unfortunately, type-preserving compi...
متن کاملType - Preserving CPS Translation of Σ and Π Types is Not Not Possible 22 : 3
Dependently typed languages such as Coq are used to specify and prove functional correctness of source programs, but what we ultimately need are guarantees about correctness of compiled code. By preserving dependent types through each compiler pass, we could preserve source-level specifications and correctness proofs into the generated target-language programs. Unfortunately, type-preserving co...
متن کاملEquivalence-Preserving Compilation
Language-based security relies on the assumption that all potential attacks are bound by the rules of the language in question. When programs are compiled into a different language, this is true only if the translation process preserves observational equivalence. We investigate the problem of fully abstract compilation, i.e., compilation that both preserves and reflects observational equivalenc...
متن کاملThe Marriage of Bisimulations and Kripke Logical Relations Technical Appendix
1 Language 3 1.1 Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Dynamic Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Static Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Contextual Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
متن کاملThe Transitive Composability of Relation Transition Systems Technical Appendix
1 Language 3 1.1 Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Dynamic Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Static Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Contextual Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
متن کامل