src/HOL/Isar_examples/Expr_Compiler.thy
changeset 31758 3edd5f813f01
parent 23373 ead82c82da9e
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/HOL/Isar_examples/Expr_Compiler.thy	Mon Jun 22 23:48:24 2009 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+(*  Title:      HOL/Isar_examples/Expr_Compiler.thy
+    Author:     Markus Wenzel, TU Muenchen
+
+Correctness of a simple expression/stack-machine compiler.
+*)
+
+header {* Correctness of a simple expression compiler *}
+
+theory Expr_Compiler
+imports Main
+begin
+
+text {*
+ This is a (rather trivial) example of program verification.  We model
+ a compiler for translating expressions to stack machine instructions,
+ and prove its correctness wrt.\ some evaluation semantics.
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Binary operations *}
+
+text {*
+ Binary operations are just functions over some type of values.  This
+ is both for abstract syntax and semantics, i.e.\ we use a ``shallow
+ embedding'' here.
+*}
+
+types
+  'val binop = "'val => 'val => 'val"
+
+
+subsection {* Expressions *}
+
+text {*
+ The language of expressions is defined as an inductive type,
+ consisting of variables, constants, and binary operations on
+ expressions.
+*}
+
+datatype ('adr, 'val) expr =
+  Variable 'adr |
+  Constant 'val |
+  Binop "'val binop" "('adr, 'val) expr" "('adr, 'val) expr"
+
+text {*
+ Evaluation (wrt.\ some environment of variable assignments) is
+ defined by primitive recursion over the structure of expressions.
+*}
+
+consts
+  eval :: "('adr, 'val) expr => ('adr => 'val) => 'val"
+
+primrec
+  "eval (Variable x) env = env x"
+  "eval (Constant c) env = c"
+  "eval (Binop f e1 e2) env = f (eval e1 env) (eval e2 env)"
+
+
+subsection {* Machine *}
+
+text {*
+ Next we model a simple stack machine, with three instructions.
+*}
+
+datatype ('adr, 'val) instr =
+  Const 'val |
+  Load 'adr |
+  Apply "'val binop"
+
+text {*
+ Execution of a list of stack machine instructions is easily defined
+ as follows.
+*}
+
+consts
+  exec :: "(('adr, 'val) instr) list
+    => 'val list => ('adr => 'val) => 'val list"
+
+primrec
+  "exec [] stack env = stack"
+  "exec (instr # instrs) stack env =
+    (case instr of
+      Const c => exec instrs (c # stack) env
+    | Load x => exec instrs (env x # stack) env
+    | Apply f => exec instrs (f (hd stack) (hd (tl stack))
+                   # (tl (tl stack))) env)"
+
+constdefs
+  execute :: "(('adr, 'val) instr) list => ('adr => 'val) => 'val"
+  "execute instrs env == hd (exec instrs [] env)"
+
+
+subsection {* Compiler *}
+
+text {*
+ We are ready to define the compilation function of expressions to
+ lists of stack machine instructions.
+*}
+
+consts
+  compile :: "('adr, 'val) expr => (('adr, 'val) instr) list"
+
+primrec
+  "compile (Variable x) = [Load x]"
+  "compile (Constant c) = [Const c]"
+  "compile (Binop f e1 e2) = compile e2 @ compile e1 @ [Apply f]"
+
+
+text {*
+ The main result of this development is the correctness theorem for
+ $\idt{compile}$.  We first establish a lemma about $\idt{exec}$ and
+ list append.
+*}
+
+lemma exec_append:
+  "exec (xs @ ys) stack env =
+    exec ys (exec xs stack env) env"
+proof (induct xs arbitrary: stack)
+  case Nil
+  show ?case by simp
+next
+  case (Cons x xs)
+  show ?case
+  proof (induct x)
+    case Const
+    from Cons show ?case by simp
+  next
+    case Load
+    from Cons show ?case by simp
+  next
+    case Apply
+    from Cons show ?case by simp
+  qed
+qed
+
+theorem correctness: "execute (compile e) env = eval e env"
+proof -
+  have "\<And>stack. exec (compile e) stack env = eval e env # stack"
+  proof (induct e)
+    case Variable show ?case by simp
+  next
+    case Constant show ?case by simp
+  next
+    case Binop then show ?case by (simp add: exec_append)
+  qed
+  then show ?thesis by (simp add: execute_def)
+qed
+
+
+text {*
+ \bigskip In the proofs above, the \name{simp} method does quite a lot
+ of work behind the scenes (mostly ``functional program execution'').
+ Subsequently, the same reasoning is elaborated in detail --- at most
+ one recursive function definition is used at a time.  Thus we get a
+ better idea of what is actually going on.
+*}
+
+lemma exec_append':
+  "exec (xs @ ys) stack env = exec ys (exec xs stack env) env"
+proof (induct xs arbitrary: stack)
+  case (Nil s)
+  have "exec ([] @ ys) s env = exec ys s env" by simp
+  also have "... = exec ys (exec [] s env) env" by simp
+  finally show ?case .
+next
+  case (Cons x xs s)
+  show ?case
+  proof (induct x)
+    case (Const val)
+    have "exec ((Const val # xs) @ ys) s env = exec (Const val # xs @ ys) s env"
+      by simp
+    also have "... = exec (xs @ ys) (val # s) env" by simp
+    also from Cons have "... = exec ys (exec xs (val # s) env) env" .
+    also have "... = exec ys (exec (Const val # xs) s env) env" by simp
+    finally show ?case .
+  next
+    case (Load adr)
+    from Cons show ?case by simp -- {* same as above *}
+  next
+    case (Apply fn)
+    have "exec ((Apply fn # xs) @ ys) s env =
+        exec (Apply fn # xs @ ys) s env" by simp
+    also have "... =
+        exec (xs @ ys) (fn (hd s) (hd (tl s)) # (tl (tl s))) env" by simp
+    also from Cons have "... =
+        exec ys (exec xs (fn (hd s) (hd (tl s)) # tl (tl s)) env) env" .
+    also have "... = exec ys (exec (Apply fn # xs) s env) env" by simp
+    finally show ?case .
+  qed
+qed
+
+theorem correctness': "execute (compile e) env = eval e env"
+proof -
+  have exec_compile: "\<And>stack. exec (compile e) stack env = eval e env # stack"
+  proof (induct e)
+    case (Variable adr s)
+    have "exec (compile (Variable adr)) s env = exec [Load adr] s env"
+      by simp
+    also have "... = env adr # s" by simp
+    also have "env adr = eval (Variable adr) env" by simp
+    finally show ?case .
+  next
+    case (Constant val s)
+    show ?case by simp -- {* same as above *}
+  next
+    case (Binop fn e1 e2 s)
+    have "exec (compile (Binop fn e1 e2)) s env =
+        exec (compile e2 @ compile e1 @ [Apply fn]) s env" by simp
+    also have "... = exec [Apply fn]
+        (exec (compile e1) (exec (compile e2) s env) env) env"
+      by (simp only: exec_append)
+    also have "exec (compile e2) s env = eval e2 env # s" by fact
+    also have "exec (compile e1) ... env = eval e1 env # ..." by fact
+    also have "exec [Apply fn] ... env =
+        fn (hd ...) (hd (tl ...)) # (tl (tl ...))" by simp
+    also have "... = fn (eval e1 env) (eval e2 env) # s" by simp
+    also have "fn (eval e1 env) (eval e2 env) =
+        eval (Binop fn e1 e2) env"
+      by simp
+    finally show ?case .
+  qed
+
+  have "execute (compile e) env = hd (exec (compile e) [] env)"
+    by (simp add: execute_def)
+  also from exec_compile
+    have "exec (compile e) [] env = [eval e env]" .
+  also have "hd ... = eval e env" by simp
+  finally show ?thesis .
+qed
+
+end