Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit f8efeaaf authored by Ralf Jung's avatar Ralf Jung
Browse files

derive rules for inv and own for view shifts; change notation for view shifts

parent b902393a
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
program_logic/hoare.v
+ 3
− 3
View file @ f8efeaaf
......@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Proof.
by rewrite -wp_value -pvs_intro; apply const_intro.
Qed.
Lemma ht_vs E P P' Q Q' e :
(P >{E}> P' ∧ {{ P' }} e @ E {{ Q' }} ∧ ∀ v, Q' v >{E}> Q v)
(P ={E}=> P' ∧ {{ P' }} e @ E {{ Q' }} ∧ ∀ v, Q' v ={E}=> Q v)
⊑ {{ P }} e @ E {{ Q }}.
Proof.
apply (always_intro' _ _), impl_intro_l.
......@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ Proof.
Qed.
Lemma ht_atomic E1 E2 P P' Q Q' e :
E2 ⊆ E1 → atomic e →
(P >{E1,E2}> P' ∧ {{ P' }} e @ E2 {{ Q' }} ∧ ∀ v, Q' v >{E2,E1}> Q v)
(P ={E1,E2}=> P' ∧ {{ P' }} e @ E2 {{ Q' }} ∧ ∀ v, Q' v ={E2,E1}=> Q v)
⊑ {{ P }} e @ E1 {{ Q }}.
Proof.
intros ??; apply (always_intro' _ _), impl_intro_l.
......@@ -98,4 +98,4 @@ Proof.
rewrite (commutative _ _ (▷ R)%I); setoid_rewrite (commutative _ _ R).
apply ht_frame_later_l.
Qed.
End hoare.
\ No newline at end of file
End hoare.
program_logic/hoare_lifting.v
+ 2
− 2
View file @ f8efeaaf
......@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Lemma ht_lift_step E1 E2
E1 ⊆ E2 → to_val e1 = None →
reducible e1 σ1 →
(∀ e2 σ2 ef, prim_step e1 σ1 e2 σ2 ef → φ e2 σ2 ef) →
(P >{E2,E1}> (ownP σ1 ★ ▷ P') ∧ ∀ e2 σ2 ef,
(■ φ e2 σ2 ef ★ ownP σ2 ★ P') >{E1,E2}> (Q1 e2 σ2 ef ★ Q2 e2 σ2 ef) ∧
(P ={E2,E1}=> (ownP σ1 ★ ▷ P') ∧ ∀ e2 σ2 ef,
(■ φ e2 σ2 ef ★ ownP σ2 ★ P') ={E1,E2}=> (Q1 e2 σ2 ef ★ Q2 e2 σ2 ef) ∧
{{ Q1 e2 σ2 ef }} e2 @ E2 {{ R }} ∧
{{ Q2 e2 σ2 ef }} ef ?@ coPset_all {{ λ _, True }})
⊑ {{ P }} e1 @ E2 {{ R }}.
......
program_logic/invariants.v
+ 8
− 10
View file @ f8efeaaf
......@@ -70,12 +70,11 @@ Proof. by rewrite always_always. Qed.
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? *)
Lemma pvs_open_close E N P Q R :
Lemma pvs_open_close E N P Q :
nclose N ⊆ E →
P ⊑ (inv N R ∧ (▷R -★ pvs (E ∖ nclose N) (E ∖ nclose N) (▷R ★ Q)))%I →
P ⊑ pvs E E Q.
(inv N P ∧ (▷P -★ pvs (E ∖ nclose N) (E ∖ nclose N) (▷P ★ Q))) ⊑ pvs E E Q.
Proof.
move=>HN -> {P}.
move=>HN.
rewrite /inv and_exist_r. apply exist_elim=>i.
rewrite -associative. apply const_elim_l=>HiN.
rewrite -(pvs_trans3 E (E ∖ {[encode i]})) //; last by solve_elem_of+.
......@@ -84,18 +83,17 @@ Proof.
rewrite always_and_sep_l' (always_sep_dup' (ownI _ _)).
rewrite {1}pvs_openI !pvs_frame_r.
apply pvs_mask_frame_mono ; [solve_elem_of..|].
rewrite (commutative _ (▷R)%I) -associative wand_elim_r pvs_frame_l.
rewrite (commutative _ (▷_)%I) -associative wand_elim_r pvs_frame_l.
apply pvs_mask_frame_mono; [solve_elem_of..|].
rewrite associative -always_and_sep_l' pvs_closeI pvs_frame_r left_id.
apply pvs_mask_frame'; solve_elem_of.
Qed.
Lemma wp_open_close E e N P (Q : val Λ → iProp Λ Σ) R :
Lemma wp_open_close E e N P (Q : val Λ → iProp Λ Σ) :
atomic e → nclose N ⊆ E →
P ⊑ (inv N R ∧ (▷R -★ wp (E ∖ nclose N) e (λ v, ▷R ★ Q v)))%I →
P ⊑ wp E e Q.
(inv N P ∧ (▷P -★ wp (E ∖ nclose N) e (λ v, ▷P ★ Q v)))%I ⊑ wp E e Q.
Proof.
move=>He HN -> {P}.
move=>He HN.
rewrite /inv and_exist_r. apply exist_elim=>i.
rewrite -associative. apply const_elim_l=>HiN.
rewrite -(wp_atomic E (E ∖ {[encode i]})) //; last by solve_elem_of+.
......@@ -104,7 +102,7 @@ Proof.
rewrite always_and_sep_l' (always_sep_dup' (ownI _ _)).
rewrite {1}pvs_openI !pvs_frame_r.
apply pvs_mask_frame_mono; [solve_elem_of..|].
rewrite (commutative _ (▷R)%I) -associative wand_elim_r wp_frame_l.
rewrite (commutative _ (▷_)%I) -associative wand_elim_r wp_frame_l.
apply wp_mask_frame_mono; [solve_elem_of..|]=>v.
rewrite associative -always_and_sep_l' pvs_closeI pvs_frame_r left_id.
apply pvs_mask_frame'; solve_elem_of.
......
program_logic/viewshifts.v
+ 53
− 50
View file @ f8efeaaf
Require Export program_logic.pviewshifts.
Require Import program_logic.ownership.
(* TODO: State lemmas in terms of inv and own. *)
Require Export program_logic.pviewshifts program_logic.invariants program_logic.ghost_ownership.
Import uPred.
Definition vs {Λ Σ} (E1 E2 : coPset) (P Q : iProp Λ Σ) : iProp Λ Σ :=
(□ (P → pvs E1 E2 Q))%I.
Arguments vs {_ _} _ _ _%I _%I.
Instance: Params (@vs) 4.
Notation "P >{ E1 , E2 }> Q" := (vs E1 E2 P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E1 at level 1, format "P >{ E1 , E2 }> Q") : uPred_scope.
Notation "P >{ E1 , E2 }> Q" := (True ⊑ vs E1 E2 P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E1 at level 1, format "P >{ E1 , E2 }> Q") : C_scope.
Notation "P >{ E }> Q" := (vs E E P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E at level 1, format "P >{ E }> Q") : uPred_scope.
Notation "P >{ E }> Q" := (True ⊑ vs E E P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E at level 1, format "P >{ E }> Q") : C_scope.
Notation "P ={ E1 , E2 }=> Q" := (vs E1 E2 P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E1 at level 1, format "P ={ E1 , E2 }=> Q") : uPred_scope.
Notation "P ={ E1 , E2 }=> Q" := (True ⊑ vs E1 E2 P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E1 at level 1, format "P ={ E1 , E2 }=> Q") : C_scope.
Notation "P ={ E }=> Q" := (vs E E P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E at level 1, format "P ={ E }=> Q") : uPred_scope.
Notation "P ={ E }=> Q" := (True ⊑ vs E E P%I Q%I)
(at level 69, E at level 1, format "P ={ E }=> Q") : C_scope.
Section vs.
Context {Λ : language} {Σ : iFunctor}.
Implicit Types P Q : iProp Λ Σ.
Implicit Types m : iGst Λ Σ.
Import uPred.
Implicit Types P Q R : iProp Λ Σ.
Lemma vs_alt E1 E2 P Q : (P ⊑ pvs E1 E2 Q) → P >{E1,E2}> Q.
Lemma vs_alt E1 E2 P Q : (P ⊑ pvs E1 E2 Q) → P ={E1,E2}=> Q.
Proof.
intros; rewrite -{1}always_const; apply always_intro, impl_intro_l.
by rewrite always_const (right_id _ _).
......@@ -36,86 +33,92 @@ Global Instance vs_proper E1 E2 : Proper ((≡) ==> (≡) ==> (≡)) (@vs Λ Σ
Proof. apply ne_proper_2, _. Qed.
Lemma vs_mono E1 E2 P P' Q Q' :
P ⊑ P' → Q' ⊑ Q → P' >{E1,E2}> Q' ⊑ P >{E1,E2}> Q.
P ⊑ P' → Q' ⊑ Q → P' ={E1,E2}=> Q' ⊑ P ={E1,E2}=> Q.
Proof. by intros HP HQ; rewrite /vs -HP HQ. Qed.
Global Instance vs_mono' E1 E2 :
Proper (flip (⊑) ==> (⊑) ==> (⊑)) (@vs Λ Σ E1 E2).
Proof. by intros until 2; apply vs_mono. Qed.
Lemma vs_false_elim E1 E2 P : False >{E1,E2}> P.
Lemma vs_false_elim E1 E2 P : False ={E1,E2}=> P.
Proof. apply vs_alt, False_elim. Qed.
Lemma vs_timeless E P : TimelessP P → ▷ P >{E}> P.
Lemma vs_timeless E P : TimelessP P → ▷ P ={E}=> P.
Proof. by intros ?; apply vs_alt, pvs_timeless. Qed.
Lemma vs_transitive E1 E2 E3 P Q R :
E2 ⊆ E1 ∪ E3 → (P >{E1,E2}> Q ∧ Q >{E2,E3}> R) ⊑ P >{E1,E3}> R.
E2 ⊆ E1 ∪ E3 → (P ={E1,E2}=> Q ∧ Q ={E2,E3}=> R) ⊑ P ={E1,E3}=> R.
Proof.
intros; rewrite -always_and; apply always_intro, impl_intro_l.
rewrite always_and (associative _) (always_elim (P → _)) impl_elim_r.
by rewrite pvs_impl_r; apply pvs_trans.
Qed.
Lemma vs_transitive' E P Q R : (P >{E}> Q ∧ Q >{E}> R) ⊑ P >{E}> R.
Lemma vs_transitive' E P Q R : (P ={E}=> Q ∧ Q ={E}=> R) ⊑ P ={E}=> R.
Proof. apply vs_transitive; solve_elem_of. Qed.
Lemma vs_reflexive E P : P >{E}> P.
Lemma vs_reflexive E P : P ={E}=> P.
Proof. apply vs_alt, pvs_intro. Qed.
Lemma vs_impl E P Q : □ (P → Q) ⊑ P >{E}> Q.
Lemma vs_impl E P Q : □ (P → Q) ⊑ P ={E}=> Q.
Proof.
apply always_intro, impl_intro_l.
by rewrite always_elim impl_elim_r -pvs_intro.
Qed.
Lemma vs_frame_l E1 E2 P Q R : P >{E1,E2}> Q ⊑ (R ★ P) >{E1,E2}> (R ★ Q).
Lemma vs_frame_l E1 E2 P Q R : P ={E1,E2}=> Q ⊑ (R ★ P) ={E1,E2}=> (R ★ Q).
Proof.
apply always_intro, impl_intro_l.
rewrite -pvs_frame_l always_and_sep_r -always_wand_impl -(associative _).
by rewrite always_elim wand_elim_r.
Qed.
Lemma vs_frame_r E1 E2 P Q R : P >{E1,E2}> Q ⊑ (P ★ R) >{E1,E2}> (Q ★ R).
Lemma vs_frame_r E1 E2 P Q R : P ={E1,E2}=> Q ⊑ (P ★ R) ={E1,E2}=> (Q ★ R).
Proof. rewrite !(commutative _ _ R); apply vs_frame_l. Qed.
Lemma vs_mask_frame E1 E2 Ef P Q :
Ef ∩ (E1 ∪ E2) = ∅ → P >{E1,E2}> Q ⊑ P >{E1 ∪ Ef,E2 ∪ Ef}> Q.
Ef ∩ (E1 ∪ E2) = ∅ → P ={E1,E2}=> Q ⊑ P ={E1 ∪ Ef,E2 ∪ Ef}=> Q.
Proof.
intros ?; apply always_intro, impl_intro_l; rewrite (pvs_mask_frame _ _ Ef)//.
by rewrite always_elim impl_elim_r.
Qed.
Lemma vs_mask_frame' E Ef P Q : Ef ∩ E = ∅ → P >{E}> Q ⊑ P >{E ∪ Ef}> Q.
Lemma vs_mask_frame' E Ef P Q : Ef ∩ E = ∅ → P ={E}=> Q ⊑ P ={E ∪ Ef}=> Q.
Proof. intros; apply vs_mask_frame; solve_elem_of. Qed.
Lemma vs_open i P : ownI i P >{{[i]},∅}> ▷ P.
Proof. intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_openI. Qed.
Lemma vs_open' E i P : i ∉ E → ownI i P >{{[i]} ∪ E,E}> ▷ P.
(* FIXME I really should not need parenthesis around the pre- and postcondition
of a view shift. *)
Lemma vs_open_close N E P Q R :
nclose N ⊆ E →
(inv N R ∧ (▷R ★ P) ={E ∖ nclose N}=> (▷R ★ Q)) ⊑ P ={E}=> Q.
Proof.
intros; rewrite -{2}(left_id_L ∅ (∪) E) -vs_mask_frame; last solve_elem_of.
apply vs_open.
intros HN. apply always_intro'; first by apply _. apply impl_intro_l.
rewrite associative (commutative _ P) -associative.
rewrite -pvs_open_close; first (apply and_mono; first done); last done.
apply wand_intro_l.
(* Oh wow, this is annyoing... *)
rewrite always_and_sep_r' associative -always_and_sep_r'.
by rewrite /vs always_elim impl_elim_r.
Qed.
Lemma vs_close i P : (ownI i P ∧ ▷ P) >{∅,{[i]}}> True.
Proof. intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_closeI. Qed.
Lemma vs_alloc (N : namespace) P : ▷ P ={N}=> inv N P.
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_alloc. Qed.
Lemma vs_close' E i P : i ∉ E → (ownI i P ∧ ▷ P) >{E,{[i]} ∪ E}> True.
Proof.
intros; rewrite -{1}(left_id_L ∅ (∪) E) -vs_mask_frame; last solve_elem_of.
apply vs_close.
Qed.
End vs.
Lemma vs_ownG_updateP E m (P : iGst Λ Σ → Prop) :
m ~~>: P → ownG m >{E}> (∃ m', ■ P m' ∧ ownG m').
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_ownG_updateP. Qed.
Section vs_ghost.
Context {Λ : language} {Σ : gid → iFunctor} (i : gid) `{!InG Λ Σ i A}.
Implicit Types a : A.
Implicit Types P Q R : iProp Λ (globalC Σ).
Lemma vs_ownG_updateP_empty `{Empty (iGst Λ Σ), !CMRAIdentity (iGst Λ Σ)}
E (P : iGst Λ Σ → Prop) :
∅ ~~>: P → True >{E}> (∃ m', ■ P m' ∧ ownG m').
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_ownG_updateP_empty. Qed.
Lemma vs_own_updateP E γ a (P : A → Prop) :
a ~~>: P → own i γ a ={E}=> (∃ a', ■ P a' ∧ own i γ a').
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, own_updateP. Qed.
Lemma vs_update E m m' : m ~~> m' → ownG m >{E}> ownG m'.
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_ownG_update. Qed.
Lemma vs_alloc E P : ¬set_finite E → ▷ P >{E}> (∃ i, ■ (i ∈ E) ∧ ownI i P).
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, pvs_allocI. Qed.
Lemma vs_own_updateP_empty `{Empty A, !CMRAIdentity A}
E γ (P : A → Prop) :
∅ ~~>: P → True ={E}=> (∃ a', ■ P a' ∧ own i γ a').
Proof. by intros; eapply vs_alt, own_updateP_empty. Qed.
End vs.
Lemma vs_update E γ a a' : a ~~> a' → own i γ a ={E}=> own i γ a'.
Proof. by intros; apply vs_alt, own_update. Qed.
End vs_ghost.
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment