We present Pyrosome, a generic framework for modular language metatheory that embodies a novel approach to extensible semantics and compilation, implemented in Coq. Common techniques for semantic reasoning are often tied to the specific structures of the languages and compilers that they support. Contextual equivalence is difficult to work with directly, and both logical relations and transition system-based approaches typically fix a specific notion of effect globally. While modular transition systems have been effective in imperative settings, they are suboptimal for functional code. These limitations restrict the extension and composition of semantics in these systems. In Pyrosome, verified compilers are fully extensible, meaning that to extend a language simply requires defining and verifying the compilation of the new feature, reusing the old correctness theorem for all other cases. The novel enabling idea is an inductive formulation of equivalence preservation that supports the addition of new rules to the source language, target language, and compiler. Pyrosome defines a formal, deeply embedded notion of programming languages with semantics given by dependently sorted equational theories, so all compiler-correctness proofs boil down to type-checking and equational reasoning. We support vertical composition of any compilers expressed in our framework in addition to feature extension. Since our design requires compilers to support open programs, our correctness guarantees support linking with any target code of the appropriate type. As a case study, we present a multipass compiler from System F with simple references, through CPS translation and closure conversion. Specifically, we demonstrate how we can build such a compiler incrementally by starting with a compiler for simply typed lambda-calculus and adding natural numbers, the unit type, recursive functions, and a global heap, then extending judgments with a type environment and adding type abstraction, all while reusing the original theorems. We also present a linear version of the simply typed CPS pass and compile a small imperative language to the simply typed target to show how Pyrosome handles substructural typing and imperative features.

We present verification of a bare-metal server built using diverse implementation techniques and languages against a whole-system input-output specification in terms of machine code, network packets, and mathematical specifications of elliptic-curve cryptography. We used very different formal-reasoning techniques throughout the stack, ranging from computer algebra, symbolic execution, and verification-condition generation to interactive verification of functional programs including compilers for C-like and functional languages. All these component specifications and domain-specific reasoning techniques are defined and justified against common foundations in the Coq proof assistant. Connecting these components is a minimalistic specification style based on functional programs and assertions over simple objects, omnisemantics for program execution, and basic separation logic for memory layout. This design enables us to bring the components together in a top-level correctness theorem that can be audited without understanding or trusting the internal interfaces and tools. Our case study is a simple cryptographic server for flipping of a bit of state through public-key authenticated network messages, and its proof shows total functional correctness including static bounds on memory usage. This paper also describes our experiences with the specific verification tools we build upon, along with detailed analysis of reasons behind the widely varying levels of productivity we experienced between combinations of tools and tasks.

There are typically two ways to compile and run a purely functional program verified using an interactive theorem prover (ITP): automatically extracting it to a similar language (typically an unverified process, like Coq to OCaml) or manually proving it equivalent to a lower-level reimplementation (like a C program). Traditionally, only the latter produced both excellent performance and end-to-end proofs.

Parametric polymorphism and gradual typing have proven to be a difficult combination, with no language yet produced that satisfies the fundamental theorems of each: parametricity and graduality. Notably, Toro, Labrada, and Tanter (POPL 2019) conjecture that for any gradual extension of System F that uses dynamic type generation, graduality and parametricity are ``simply incompatible''. However, we argue that it is not graduality and parametricity that are incompatible per se, but instead that combining the syntax of System F with dynamic type generation as in previous work necessitates type-directed computation, which we show has been a common source of graduality and parametricity violations in previous work. We then show that by modifying the syntax of universal and existential types to make the type name generation explicit, we remove the need for type-directed computation, and get a language that satisfies both graduality and parametricity theorems. The language has a simple runtime semantics, which can be explained by translation to a statically typed language where the dynamic type is interpreted as a dynamically extensible sum type. Far from being in conflict, we show that the parametricity theorem follows as a direct corollary of a relational interpretation of the graduality property.

The polymorphic blame calculus integrates static typing, including universal types, with dynamic typing. The primary challenge with this integration is preserving parametricity: even dynamically-typed code should satisfy it once it has been cast to a universal type. Ahmed et al. (2011) employ runtime type generation in the polymorphic blame calculus to preserve parametricity, but a proof that it does so has been elusive. Matthews and Ahmed (2008) gave a proof of parametricity for a closely related system that combines ML and Scheme, but later found a flaw in their proof. In this paper we present an improved version of the polymorphic blame calculus and we prove that it satisfies relational parametricity. The proof relies on a step-indexed Kripke logical relation. The step-indexing is required to make the logical relation well-defined in the case for the dynamic type. The possible worlds include the mapping of generated type names to their types and the mapping of type names to relations. We prove the Fundamental Property of this logical relation and that it is sound with respect to contextual equivalence. To demonstrate the utility of parametricity in the polymorphic blame calculus, we derive two free theorems.