Dinghao Wu, Andrew W. Appel, and Aaron Stump. Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. In PPDP '03: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Principles and practice of declaritive programming, pages 264--274. ACM Press, 2003. 15  Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Imperative LF Meta-Programming - Stump (2004) Self-citation (Stump) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Wu, A. Appel, and A. Stump. Foundational Proof Checkers with Small Witnesses. In D. Miller, editor, 5th ACM-SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, 2003. 12
A Provably Sound TAL for Back-end Optimization - Chen, Wu, Appel, Fang (2003) (7 citations) Self-citation (Appel) (Correct)
....checker. Just in case you are worried about bugs (or Trojan horses) in proof checkers, our soundness proof is checkable in a very minimal logic: the trusted base of our system (including axioms, machine specification, and a C program implementing LF checking) is less than 2700 lines of code [5, 22], an order of magnitude smaller than other systems. Atomicity. Some other TALs have macro instruction sequences (or even worse, calls to the runtime system) for compare and branch, or datatype tag checking, or memory allocation. This inhibits optimizations such as hoisting and scheduling. ....
....committing to any specific type system. We believe that the smaller the TCB, the more confidence PCC users can have. Our TCB consists of the specification of the safety policy, machine instruction semantics, and the proof checker. In the current implementation, it is less than 2,700 lines of code [5, 22], of which more than half is the specification of the Sparc instruction set architecture. To make the TCB minimal, we choose Church s higher order logic with a few axioms of arithmetic, give types a semantic model to move the type system out of the TCB, and model machine instructions by a step ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Dinghao Wu, Andrew W. Appel, and Aaron Stump. Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. March 2003.
Small proof witnesses for LF - Sarkar, Pientka, Crary (2005) (Correct)
No context found.
Dinghao Wu, Andrew W. Appel, and Aaron Stump. Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. In PPDP '03: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Principles and practice of declaritive programming, pages 264--274. ACM Press, 2003. 15
Interfacing Compilers, Proof Checkers, and Proofs for Foundational.. - Wu (2005) (Correct)
No context found.
Dinghao Wu, Andrew W. Appel, and Aaron Stump. Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM-SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP '03), pages 264--274, New York, August 2003. ACM Press.
A Framework for Certified Program Analysis and Its.. - Chang, Chlipala, Necula (2006) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Wu, A. W. Appel, and A. Stump. Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. In Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pages 264--274, Aug. 2003.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC