Last change on this file since 3544 was 807, checked in by mulligan, 9 years ago

small change

• Property svn:executable set to *
File size: 8.4 KB
Line
1% CerCo: Certified Complexity
2%
4%
5% Plan for Dissemination and Use
6% Addendum requested by project reviewers at end of year 1.
7%
8% Ian Stark
9% 2011-05
10
11\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
12\usepackage{../style/cerco}
13
14\hypersetup{bookmarksopenlevel=2}
15
16\title{
17INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES\\
18(ICT)\\
19PROGRAMME\\
20\vspace*{1cm}Project FP7-ICT-2009-C-243881 {\cerco}}
21
22\date{ }
23\author{}
24
25\begin{document}
26\thispagestyle{empty}
27
28\vspace*{-1cm}
29\begin{center}
30\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{../style/cerco_logo.png}
31\end{center}
32
33\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
34\maketitle
35\end{minipage}
36
37
38\vspace*{0.5cm}
39\begin{center}
40\begin{LARGE}
41\bf
42Commitment to the Consideration of Reviewer's Reccomendations
43\end{LARGE}
44\end{center}
45
46\vspace*{2cm}
47\begin{center}
48\begin{large}
49%Version 1.0
50\end{large}
51\end{center}
52
53\vspace*{0.5cm}
54\begin{center}
55\begin{large}
56%Main Authors:\\
57%I. Stark
58\end{large}
59\end{center}
60
61\vspace*{\fill}
62\noindent
63Project Acronym: {\cerco}\\
64Project full title: Certified Complexity\\
65Proposal/Contract no.: FP7-ICT-2009-C-243881 {\cerco}\\
66
68
69\tableofcontents
70
71%\section{Premise}
72The first Scientific Review Report contains several valuable comments and
73recommendations by the scientific reviewers. We discuss here the three
74main recommendations, committing ourselves to taking them in account during the
75next project period.
76
77\begin{enumerate}
78\item The reviewers are worried by the possible limitations that derive from
79 the choice of a very old architecture layout. They recommend we adopt a
80 modified form of labelling such that basic complexity annotations can be
81 obtained from program pieces of larger granularity.
82
83 We will investigate this issue. In particular, the integration of some WCET
84 techniques seem feasible. For instance, let us consider the use of
85 a simple abstract interpretation technique to improve the accuracy of WCET in
86 the presence of caches. The analysis performed on loops, associates to each memory
87 access an abstract value in a three valued domain, consisting of cache-hits,
88 cache misses and unknown cache behaviour. With this valuable information, we
89 can assign a different cost to each single instruction: while the analysis
90 is done on a large chunk of code, the cost is finally associated with single
91 instructions, as in our approach. Since our approach is totally parametric
92 in the function that assigns costs to target instructions, nothing needs
93 to be changed in this simple case.
94
95 Realistic tools, however, also use a bound
96 on the number of loop iterations to augment precision of the analysis.
97 Moreover, they assign different costs to the first iteration of a loop and to
98 successive ones. In these cases, the problem posed with our approach consists
99 of formally verifying that bounds specified by the user (or automatically
100 inferred by some invariant generator) on the source code are preserved in the
101 target code. We believe that the labelling technique we have adopted should
102 allow us to also accomodate these invariants. In the following project
103 period we will perform a theoretical investigation of this issue and we will
104 evaluate the feasibility of the implementation of a prototype.
105
106\item The reviewers suggest to quickly outline pencil-and-paper correctness
107 proofs for each of the seven stages of the compiler in order to establish an
108 estimation for the complexity of completing the formalisation, and time required
109 to do so.
110
111 We plan to depart from CompCert when carrying out our proof since we want to
112 experiment different proof strategies where possible. In particular, we will
113 try to exploit dependent types in our formalisation, as dependent types were
114 avoided as a design principle in CompCert. For this reason, we have already
115 started to formalise in Matita the intermediate languages of our compiler,
116 recording invariants in the types themselves and rearranging some code.
117 This should be completed at month 18. At this point we will be able to
118 correctly state the intermediate proof statements and to estimate the
119 complexity and effort needed for the formalisation.
120
121\item The reviewers suggest we use this estimation to compare two possible
122 scenarios: a) proceed as planned, porting all the CompCert proofs to Matita or
123 b) port D3.1 and D4.1 to Coq and re-use the CompCert proofs.
124
125 We will stop and spend some time on the proposed comparison. Nevertheless,
126 we now make a few points that we feel are important to understand our
127 perspective.
128 \begin{enumerate}
129  \item CompCert proofs are not open source. All commercial uses are prohibited
130   by the licence. One of the strong points of the project proposal was to
131   obtain a fully open source verified compiler. This does not allow us to
132   re-use at all CompCert proofs (the intermediate languages are instead put
133   under GPL). Of course, we could re-discuss the open source project
134   requirement, but for reasons I am not listing here we do champion open
135   source, in particular for software developed using public money.
136  \item CompCert is without doubt part of the state of the art in compiler
137   certification. The proofs are very well organized and the authors are
138   trying to maximise simplicity and and potential for reuse. Nevertheless, some important design
139   decisions have been taken from the very start of the CompCert effortlan that have not been
140   questioned extensively. Among them, the use of a non-executable semantics
141   for intermediate languages and the use of non-dependent types for the code.
142   From our point of view, the CerCo project is first of all a project in
143   compiler certification. Therefore, we are interested in exploring the
144   design space for compiler certification. For this reason, as early as in the
145   project proposal, we decided to start from different assumptions. In
146   particular, we favour dependent types and an executable semantics.
147   We are not claiming in advance that we will obtain better results than
148   CompCert: what we are claiming is the interest in comparing large scale
149   solutions based on different techniques. We also note that the ones used
150   in CompCert are very reasonable because of the choice of Coq that,
151   traditionally, has favoured the use of non-executable, inductive
152   specification over executable ones.
153  \item If we decide to depart from the choices we made in the project
154   proposal and reuse CompCert proofs, this does not imply automatically that
155   it is decisively better for us to switch from Matita to Coq. Indeed, the
156   effort of just porting verbatim the proofs from Coq to Matita is very small.
157   Indeed, as said before, our interest is in changing the proofs themselves.
158   We should therefore decide if it would be easier to port verbatim the
159   proofs to Matita or if it would be simpler to port the deliverables already
160   done in Matita to Coq. Since we have already used some features of Matita
161   not available in Coq and since we have more control over Matita, it is not
162   obvious \emph{a priori} what solution would be more convenient.
163  \item It is clear that one partner is interested in promoting the use of
164   Matita. We think that more competition in the domain of interactive theorem
165   proving will be rewarding for the community as a whole. Indeed, Coq saw
166   many interesting improvements in the period when it co-existed with Lego,
167   an alternative implementation of the same calculus. Moreover, some ideas
168   developed for Matita have already been ported to Coq itself, and the two
169   systems show alternative solutions for similar problems that are still
170   under comparison (e.g. Matita's unification hints vs. Coq's type classes).
171   One of the major struggles of EU funded research, and FET in particular,
172   is the balance between innovation and stability. While the promotion and
173   improvement of Matita is not a major goal for the project, we believe that
174   it will provide some good outcomes `on the side', as it happened in the past when
175   Matita was used for some major formalisations and new techniques were
176   developed to solve recurring problems. This would be hardly possible using Coq, since
177   nobody in the CerCo team is a member of the Coq development team and has the
178   expertise to quickly modify such a large and complex system as Coq.
179 \end{enumerate}
180
181\end{enumerate}
182
183~\\
184
185Bologna, 13/05/2011 \hspace{6cm} The project co-ordinator.
186
187\end{document}
188
189% LocalWords:  Sacerdoti Coen microcontroller FMCAD VSTTE TPHOLs LPAR Artefacts
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.