Symmetry breaking is a crucial technique in modern combinatorial solving, but it is difficult to be sure it is implemented correctly. The most successful approach to deal with bugs is to make solvers certifying, so that they output not just a solution, but also a mathematical proof of correctness in a standard format, which can then be checked by a formally verified checker. This requires justifying symmetry reasoning within the proof, but developing efficient methods for this has remained a long-standing open challenge. A fully general approach was recently proposed, but it relies on encoding lexicographic orders with big integers, which quickly becomes infeasible for large symmetries. In this work, we develop a method for instead encoding orders with auxiliary variables. We show that this leads to orders-of-magnitude speed-ups in both theory and practice by running experiments on proof logging and checking for SAT symmetry breaking using the state-of-the-art satsuma symmetry breaker and the VeriPB proof checking toolchain.

Applied combinatorial optimization has witnessed a revolution in performance since the turn of the millennium, but the complexity of modern solvers is making bugs an ever more serious concern. The most promising remedy is to make solvers certifying, so that they use proof logging to generate machine-verifiable proofs of correctness. We present the first example of state-of-the-art certified graph colouring by equipping the solver ZykovColor with VeriPB proof logging. Combined with the formally verified CakePB checker, this provides end-to-end formally certified results. An experimental evaluation shows excellent results with only moderate overhead for proof logging and checking.

This paper describes Brack, which is a new verified compiler for Scheme. Brack compiles a substantial subset of Scheme, including first-class continuations, recursive bindings, first-class functions, mutable local variables, and lists, to CakeML, from where programs can be compiled to machine code. Compilation from Scheme to CakeML is based around a continuation-passing-style (CPS) transformation that naturally arises from Scheme’s small-step semantics. We have formally established the correctness of Brack in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Dafny is a verification-aware programming language that comes with a compiler and static program verifier. However, neither the compiler nor the verifier is proved correct; in fact, soundness bugs have been found in both tools. This paper shows that the aforementioned Dafny tools can be developed with foundational correctness guarantees. We present a functional big-step semantics for an imperative subset of Dafny and, based on this semantics, a verified verification condition generator (VCG) and a verified compiler for Dafny. The subset of Dafny we have formalized includes mutually recursive method calls, while loops, and arrays---these language features are significant enough to cover challenging examples such as McCarthy's 91 function and array-based programs that are used when teaching Dafny. The verified VCG allows one to prove functional correctness of annotated Dafny programs, while the verified compiler can be used to compile verified Dafny programs to CakeML programs. From there, one can obtain executable machine code via the (already verified) CakeML compiler, all while provably maintaining the functional correctness guarantees that were proved for the source-level Dafny programs. Our work has been mechanized in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Conway's Game of Life (GOL) is a cellular automaton that has captured the interest of hobbyists and mathematicians alike for more than 50 years. The Game of Life is Turing complete, and people have been building increasingly sophisticated constructions within GOL, such as 8-bit displays, Turing machines, and even an implementation of GOL itself. In this paper, we report on a project to build an implementation of GOL within GOL, via logic circuits, fully formally verified within the HOL4 theorem prover. This required a combination of interactive tactic proving, symbolic simulation, and semi-automated forward proof to assemble the components into an infinite circuit which can calculate the next step of the simulation while respecting signal propagation delays. The result is a verified "GOL in GOL compiler" which takes an initial GOL state and returns a mega-cell version of it that can be passed to off-the-shelf GOL simulators, such as Golly. We believe these techniques are also applicable to other cellular automata, as well as for hardware verification which takes into account both the physical configuration of components and wire delays.

Neural networks have emerged as essential components in safety-critical applications - these use cases demand complex, yet trustworthy computations. Binarized Neural Networks (BNNs) are a type of neural network where each neuron is constrained to a Boolean value; they are particularly well-suited for safety-critical tasks because they retain much of the computational capacities of full-scale (floating-point or quantized) deep neural networks, but remain compatible with satisfiability solvers for qualitative verification and with model counters for quantitative reasoning. However, existing methods for BNN analysis suffer from either limited scalability or susceptibility to soundness errors, which hinders their applicability in real-world scenarios. In this work, we present a scalable and trustworthy approach for both qualitative and quantitative verification of BNNs. Our approach introduces a native representation of BNN constraints in a custom-designed solver for qualitative reasoning, and in an approximate model counter for quantitative reasoning. We further develop specialized proof generation and checking pipelines with native support for BNN constraint reasoning, ensuring trustworthiness for all of our verification results. Empirical evaluations on a BNN robustness verification benchmark suite demonstrate that our certified solving approach achieves a 9× speedup over prior certified CNF and PB-based approaches, and our certified counting approach achieves a 218× speedup over the existing CNF-based baseline. In terms of coverage, our pipeline produces fully certified results for 99% and 86% of the qualitative and quantitative reasoning queries on BNNs, respectively. This is in sharp contrast to the best existing baselines which can fully certify only 62% and 4% of the queries, respectively.

Abstract This paper presents a fully verified interactive theorem prover for higher-order logic, more specifically: a fully verified clone of HOL Light. Our verification proof of this new system results in an end-to-end correctness theorem that guarantees the soundness of the entire system down to the machine code that executes at runtime. Our theorem states that every exported fact produced by this machine-code program is valid in higher-order logic. Our implementation consists of a read-eval-print loop (REPL) that executes the CakeML compiler internally. Throughout this work, we have strived to make the REPL of the new system provide a user experience as close to HOL Light’s as possible. To this end, we have, e.g., made the new system parse the same variant of OCaml syntax as HOL Light. All of the work described in this paper has been carried out in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Abstract We add an efficient function for computation to the kernels of higher-order logic interactive theorem provers. First, we develop and prove sound our approach for Candle. Candle is a port of HOL Light which has been proved sound with respect to the inference rules of its higher-order logic; we extend its implementation and soundness proof. Second, we replicate our now-verified implementation for HOL4 with only minor changes, and build additional automation for ease of use. The automation exists outside of the HOL4 kernel, and requires no additional trust. We exercise our new computation function and associated automation on the evaluation of the CakeML compiler backend within HOL4’s logic, demonstrating an order of magnitude speedup. This is an extended version of our previous conference paper [2], which described implementation and soundness proofs for Candle. Our HOL4 implementation and automation are new, as are the CakeML benchmarks.

Modern subgraph-finding algorithm implementations consist of thousands of lines of highly optimized code, and this complexity raises questions about their trustworthiness. Recently, some state-of-the-art subgraph solvers have been enhanced to output machine-verifiable proofs that their results are correct. While this significantly improves reliability, it is not a fully satisfactory solution, since end-users have to trust both the proof checking algorithms and the translation of the high-level graph problem into a low-level 0-1 integer linear program (ILP) used for the proofs. In this work, we present the first formally verified toolchain capable of full end-to-end verification for subgraph solving, which closes both of these trust gaps. We have built encoder frontends for various graph problems together with a 0-1 ILP (a.k.a. pseudo-Boolean) proof checker, all implemented and formally verified in the CakeML ecosystem. This toolchain is flexible and extensible, and we use it to build verified proof checkers for both decision and optimization graph problems, namely, subgraph isomorphism, maximum clique, and maximum common (connected) induced subgraph. Our experimental evaluation shows that end-to-end formal verification is now feasible for a wide range of hard graph problems.

Abstract Approximate model counting is the task of approximating the number of solutions to an input Boolean formula. The state-of-the-art approximate model counter for formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF), $$\textsf{ApproxMC}$$ ApproxMC , provides a scalable means of obtaining model counts with probably approximately correct (PAC)-style guarantees. Nevertheless, the validity of $$\textsf{ApproxMC}$$ ApproxMC ’s approximation relies on a careful theoretical analysis of its randomized algorithm and the correctness of its highly optimized implementation, especially the latter’s stateful interactions with an incremental CNF satisfiability solver capable of natively handling parity (XOR) constraints. We present the first certification framework for approximate model counting with formally verified guarantees on the quality of its output approximation. Our approach combines: (i) a static, once-off, formal proof of the algorithm’s PAC guarantee in the Isabelle/HOL proof assistant; and (ii) dynamic, per-run, verification of $$\textsf{ApproxMC}$$ ApproxMC ’s calls to an external CNF-XOR solver using proof certificates. We detail our general approach to establish a rigorous connection between these two parts of the verification, including our blueprint for turning the formalized, randomized algorithm into a verified proof checker, and our design of proof certificates for both $$\textsf{ApproxMC}$$ ApproxMC and its internal CNF-XOR solving steps. Experimentally, we show that certificate generation adds little overhead to an approximate counter implementation, and that our certificate checker is able to fully certify $$84.7\%$$ 84.7 % of instances with generated certificates when given the same time and memory limits as the counter.

Abstract Inlining is a crucial optimisation when compiling functional programming languages. This paper describes how we have implemented and verified function inlining and loop specialisation for PureCake, a verified compiler for a Haskell-like (purely functional, lazy) programming language. A novel aspect of our formalisation is that we justify inlining by pushing and pulling "Image missing"-bindings. All of our work has been mechanised in the HOL4 interactive theorem prover.

Abstract Building on the progress in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving over the last decades, maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) has become a viable approach for solving -hard optimization problems. However, ensuring correctness of MaxSAT solvers has remained a considerable concern. For SAT, this is largely a solved problem thanks to the use of proof logging, meaning that solvers emit machine-verifiable proofs to certify correctness. However, for MaxSAT, proof logging solvers have started being developed only very recently. Moreover, these nascent efforts have only targeted the core solving process, ignoring the preprocessing phase where input problem instances can be substantially reformulated before being passed on to the solver proper. In this work, we demonstrate how pseudo-Boolean proof logging can be used to certify the correctness of a wide range of modern MaxSAT preprocessing techniques. By combining and extending the VeriPB and CakePB tools, we provide formally verified end-to-end proof checking that the input and preprocessed output MaxSAT problem instances have the same optimal value. An extensive evaluation on applied MaxSAT benchmarks shows that our approach is feasible in practice.

We introduce Pancake, a new language for verifiable, low-level systems programming, especially device drivers. Pancake eschews complex type systems to make the language attractive to systems programmers, while at the same time aiming to ease the formal verification of code. We describe the design of the language and its verified compiler, and examine its usability, performance and current limitations through case studies of device drivers and related systems components for an seL4-based operating system.

We present PureCake, a mechanically-verified compiler for PureLang, a lazy, purely functional programming language with monadic effects. PureLang syntax is Haskell-like and indentation-sensitive, and its constraint-based Hindley-Milner type system guarantees safe execution. We derive sound equational reasoning principles over its operational semantics, dramatically simplifying some proofs. We prove end-to-end correctness for the compilation of PureLang down to machine code---the first such result for any lazy language---by targeting CakeML and composing with its verified compiler. Multiple optimisation passes are necessary to handle realistic lazy idioms effectively. We develop PureCake entirely within the HOL4 interactive theorem prover.

We have extended the verified CakeML compiler with a new language primitive, Eval, which permits evaluation of new CakeML syntax at runtime. This new implementation supports an ambitious form of compilation at runtime and dynamic execution, where the original and dynamically added code can share (higher-order) values and recursively call each other. This is, to our knowledge, the first verified run-time environment capable of supporting a standard LCF-style theorem prover design. Modifying the modern CakeML compiler pipeline and proofs to support a dynamic computation semantics was an extensive project. We review the design decisions, proof techniques, and proof engineering lessons from the project, and highlight some unexpected complications.

Abstract Modern SAT solvers can emit independently-checkable proof certificates to validate their results. The state-of-the-art proof system that allows for compact proof certificates is propagation redundancy ( $$\textsf{PR}$$ PR ). However, the only existing method to validate proofs in this system with a formally verified tool requires a transformation to a weaker proof system, which can result in a significant blowup in the size of the proof and increased proof validation time. This article describes the first approach to formally verify $$\textsf{PR}$$ PR proofs on a succinct representation. We present (i) a new Linear PR (LPR) proof format, (ii) an extension of the tool to efficiently convert $$\textsf{PR}$$ PR proofs into LPR format, and (iii) , a verified LPR proof checker developed in CakeML. We also enhance these tools with (iv) a new compositional proof format designed to enable separate (parallel) proof checking. The LPR format is backwards compatible with the existing LRAT format, but extends LRAT with support for the addition of $$\textsf{PR}$$ PR clauses. Moreover, is verified using CakeML ’s binary code extraction toolchain, which yields correctness guarantees for its machine code (binary) implementation. This further distinguishes our clausal proof checker from existing checkers because unverified extraction and compilation tools are removed from its trusted computing base. We experimentally show that: LPR provides efficiency gains over existing proof formats; ’s strong correctness guarantees are obtained without significant sacrifice in its performance; and the compositional proof format enables scalable parallel proof checking for large proofs.

This paper presents a fully verified interactive theorem prover for higher-order logic, more specifically: a fully verified clone of HOL Light. Our verification proof of this new system results in an end-to-end correctness theorem that guarantees the soundness of the entire system down to the machine code that executes at runtime. Our theorem states that every exported fact produced by this machine-code program is valid in higher-order logic. Our implementation consists of a read-eval-print loop (REPL) that executes the CakeML compiler internally. Throughout this work, we have strived to make the REPL of the new system provide a user experience as close to HOL Light’s as possible. To this end, we have, e.g., made the new system parse the same variant of OCaml syntax as HOL Light. All of the work described in this paper has been carried out in the HOL4 theorem prover.

This paper shows how a small verified bootstrapped compiler can be developed inside an interactive theorem prover (ITP). Throughout, emphasis is put on clarity and minimalism.

Abstract Modern SAT solvers can emit independently checkable proof certificates to validate their results. The state-of-the-art proof system that allows for compact proof certificates ispropagation redundancy(PR). However, the only existing method to validate proofs in this system with a formally verified tool requires a transformation to a weaker proof system, which can result in a significant blowup in the size of the proof and increased proof validation time. This paper describes the first approach to formally verify PR proofs on a succinct representation; we present (i) a newLinear PR(LPR) proof format, (ii) a tool to efficiently convert PR proofs into LPR format, and (iii) , a verified LPR proof checker developed in CakeML. The LPR format is backwards compatible with the existing LRAT format, but extends the latter with support for the addition of PR clauses. Moreover, is verified using CakeML ’s binary code extraction toolchain, which yields correctness guarantees for its machine code (binary) implementation. This further distinguishes our clausal proof checker from existing ones because unverified extraction and compilation tools are removed from its trusted computing base. We experimentally show that LPR provides efficiency gains over existing proof formats and that the strong correctness guarantees are obtained without significant sacrifice in the performance of the verified executable.

Abstract We introduce an automatic method for producing stateful ML programs together with proofs of correctness from monadic functions in HOL. Our mechanism supports references, exceptions, and I/O operations, and can generate functions manipulating local state, which can then be encapsulated for use in a pure context. We apply this approach to several non-trivial examples, including the instruction encoder and register allocator of the otherwise pure CakeML compiler, which now benefits from better runtime performance. This development has been carried out in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Garbage collectors relieve the programmer from manual memory management, but lead to compiler-generated machine code that can behave differently (e.g. out-of-memory errors) from the source code. To ensure that the generated code behaves exactly like the source code, programmers need a way to answer questions of the form: what is a sufficient amount of memory for my program to never reach an out-of-memory error? This paper develops a cost semantics that can answer such questions for CakeML programs. The work described in this paper is the first to be able to answer such questions with proofs in the context of a language that depends on garbage collection. We demonstrate that positive answers can be used to transfer liveness results proved for the source code to liveness guarantees about the generated machine code. Without guarantees about space usage, only safety results can be transferred from source to machine code. Our cost semantics is phrased in terms of an abstract intermediate language of the CakeML compiler, but results proved at that level map directly to the space cost of the compiler-generated machine code. All of the work described in this paper has been developed in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Verified compilers like CompCert and CakeML offer increasingly sophisticated optimizations. However, their deterministic source semantics and strict IEEE 754 compliance prevent the verification of “fast-math” style floating-point optimizations. Developers often selectively use these optimizations in mainstream compilers like GCC and LLVM to improve the performance of computations over noisy inputs or for heuristics by allowing the compiler to perform intuitive but IEEE 754-unsound rewrites. We designed, formalized, implemented, and verified a compiler for Icing, a new language which supports selectively applying fast-math style optimizations in a verified compiler. Icing’s semantics provides the first formalization of fast-math in a verified compiler. We show how the Icing compiler can be connected to the existing verified CakeML compiler and verify the end-to-end translation by a sequence of refinement proofs from Icing to the translated CakeML. We evaluated Icing by incorporating several of GCC’s fast-math rewrites. While Icing targets CakeML’s source language, the techniques we developed are general and could also be incorporated in lower-level intermediate representations.

There are useful programs that do not terminate, and yet standard Hoare logics are not able to prove liveness properties about non-terminating programs. This paper shows how a Hoare-like programming logic framework (characteristic formulae) can be extended to enable reasoning about the I/O behaviour of programs that do not terminate. The approach is inspired by transfinite induction rather than coinduction, and does not require non-terminating loops to be productive. This work has been developed in the HOL4 theorem prover and has been integrated into the ecosystem of proof tools surrounding the CakeML programming language.

Developing technology for building verified stacks, i.e., computer systems with comprehensive proofs of correctness, is one way the science of programming languages furthers the computing discipline. While there have been successful projects verifying complex, realistic system components, including compilers (software) and processors (hardware), to date these verification efforts have not been compatible to the point of enabling a single end-to-end correctness theorem about running a verified compiler on a verified processor.

This paper presents the verification of a generational copying garbage collector for the CakeML runtime system. The proof is split into an algorithm proof and an implementation proof. The algorithm proof follows the structure of the informal intuition for the generational collector’s correctness, namely, a partial collection cycle in a generational collector is the same as running a full collection on part of the heap, if one views pointers to old data as non-pointers. We present a pragmatic way of dealing with ML-style mutable state, such as references and arrays, in the proofs. The development has been fully integrated into the in-logic bootstrapped CakeML compiler, which now includes command-line arguments that allow configuration of the generational collector. All proofs were carried out in the HOL4 theorem prover.

Abstract The CakeML compiler is, to the best of our knowledge, the most realistic verified compiler for a functional programming language to date. The architecture of the compiler, a sequence of intermediate languages through which high-level features are compiled away incrementally, enables verification of each compilation pass at an appropriate level of semantic detail. Parts of the compiler’s implementation resemble mainstream (unverified) compilers for strict functional languages, and it supports several important features and optimisations. These include efficient curried multi-argument functions, configurable data representations, efficient exceptions, register allocation, and more. The compiler produces machine code for five architectures: x86-64, ARMv6, ARMv8, MIPS-64, and RISC-V. The generated machine code contains the verified runtime system which includes a verified generational copying garbage collector and a verified arbitrary precision arithmetic (bignum) library. In this paper, we present the overall design of the compiler backend, including its 12 intermediate languages. We explain how the semantics and proofs fit together and provide detail on how the compiler has been bootstrapped inside the logic of a theorem prover. The entire development has been carried out within the HOL4 theorem prover.

Being able to soundly estimate roundoff errors of finite-precision computations is important for many applications in embedded systems and scientific computing. Due to the discrepancy between continuous reals and discrete finite-precision values, automated static analysis tools are highly valuable to estimate roundoff errors. The results, however, are only as correct as the implementations of the static analysis tools. This paper presents a formally verified and modular tool which fully automatically checks the correctness of finite-precision roundoff error bounds encoded in a certificate. We present implementations of certificate generation and checking for both Coq and HOL4 and evaluate it on a number of examples from the literature. The experiments use both in-logic evaluation of Coq and HOL4, and execution of extracted code outside of the logics: we benchmark Coq extracted unverified OCaml code and a CakeML-generated verified binary.

We present VeriPhy, a verified pipeline which automatically transforms verified high-level models of safety-critical cyber-physical systems (CPSs) in differential dynamic logic (dL) to verified controller executables. VeriPhy proves that all safety results are preserved end-to-end as it bridges abstraction gaps, including: i) the gap between mathematical reals in physical models and machine arithmetic in the implementation, ii) the gap between real physics and its differential-equation models, and iii) the gap between nondeterministic controller models and machine code. VeriPhy reduces CPS safety to the faithfulness of the physical environment, which is checked at runtime by synthesized, verified monitors. We use three provers in this effort: KeYmaera X, HOL4, and Isabelle/HOL. To minimize the trusted base, we cross-verify KeYmaeraX in Isabelle/HOL. We evaluate the resulting controller and monitors on commodity robotics hardware.

This paper describes how the latest CakeML compiler supports verified compilation down to multiple realistically modelled target architectures. In particular, we describe how the compiler definition, the various language semantics, and the correctness proofs were organised to minimize target-specific overhead. With our setup we have incorporated compilation to four 64-bit architectures, ARMv8, x86-64, MIPS-64, RISC-V, and one 32-bit architecture, ARMv6. Our correctness theorem allows interference from the environment: the top-level correctness statement takes into account execution of foreign code and per-instruction interference from external processes, such as interrupt handlers in operating systems. The entire CakeML development is formalised in the HOL4 theorem prover.

We have designed an intermediate language (IL) for the CakeML compiler that supports the verified, efficient compilation of functions and calls. Verified compilation steps include batching of multiple curried arguments, detecting calls to statically known functions, and specialising calls to known functions with no free variables. Finally, we verify the translation to a lower-level IL that only supports closed, first-order functions. These compilation steps resemble those found in other compilers (especially OCaml). Our contribution here is the design of the semantics of the IL, and the demonstration that our verification techniques over this semantics work well in practice at this scale. The entire development was carried out in the HOL4 theorem prover.

We have developed and mechanically verified a new compiler backend for CakeML. Our new compiler features a sequence of intermediate languages that allows it to incrementally compile away high-level features and enables verification at the right levels of semantic detail. In this way, it resembles mainstream (unverified) compilers for strict functional languages. The compiler supports efficient curried multi-argument functions, configurable data representations, exceptions that unwind the call stack, register allocation, and more. The compiler targets several architectures: x86-64, ARMv6, ARMv8, MIPS-64, and RISC-V.

We present a mechanised semantics for higher-order logic (HOL), and a proof of soundness for the inference system, including the rules for making definitions, implemented by the kernel of the HOL Light theorem prover. Our work extends Harrison’s verification of the inference system without definitions. Soundness of the logic extends to soundness of a theorem prover, because we also show that a synthesised implementation of the kernel in CakeML refines the inference system. Apart from adding support for definitions and synthesising an implementation, we improve on Harrison’s work by making our model of HOL parametric on the universe of sets, and we prove soundness for an improved principle of constant specification in the hope of encouraging its adoption. Our semantics supports defined constants directly via a context, and we find this approach cleaner than our previous work formalising Wiedijk’s Stateless HOL.

We have developed and mechanically verified an ML system called CakeML, which supports a substantial subset of Standard ML. CakeML is implemented as an interactive read-eval-print loop (REPL) in x86-64 machine code. Our correctness theorem ensures that this REPL implementation prints only those results permitted by the semantics of CakeML. Our verification effort touches on a breadth of topics including lexing, parsing, type checking, incremental and dynamic compilation, garbage collection, arbitrary-precision arithmetic, and compiler bootstrapping.

Abstract The higher-order logic found in proof assistants such as Coq and various HOL systems provides a convenient setting for the development and verification of functional programs. However, to efficiently run these programs, they must be converted (or ‘extracted’) to functional programs in a programming language such as ML or Haskell. With current techniques, this step, which must be trusted, relates similar looking objects that have very different semantic definitions, such as the set-theoretic model of a logic and the operational semantics of a programming language. In this paper, we show how to increase the trustworthiness of this step with an automated technique. Given a functional program expressed in higher-order logic, our technique provides the corresponding program for a functional language defined with an operational semantics, and it provides a mechanically checked theorem relating the two. This theorem can then be used to transfer verified properties of the logical function to the program. We have implemented our technique in the HOL4 theorem prover, translating functions to a subset of Standard ML, and have applied the implementation to examples including functional data structures, a parser generator, cryptographic algorithms, a garbage collector and the 500-line kernel of the HOL light theorem prover. This paper extends our previous conference publication with new material that shows how functions defined in terms of a state-and-exception monad can be translated, with proofs, into stateful ML code. The HOL light example is also new.

We extend the existing formal verification of the seL4 operating system microkernel from 9500 lines of C source code to the binary level. We handle all functions that were part of the previous verification. Like the original verification, we currently omit the assembly routines and volatile accesses used to control system hardware.

The higher-order logic found in proof assistants such as Coq and various HOL systems provides a convenient setting for the development and verification of pure functional programs. However, to efficiently run these programs, they must be converted (or "extracted") to functional programs in a programming language such as ML or Haskell. With current techniques, this step, which must be trusted, relates similar looking objects that have very different semantic definitions, such as the set-theoretic model of a logic and the operational semantics of a programming language.

This paper presents a method for creating formally correct just-in-time (JIT) compilers. The tractability of our approach is demonstrated through, what we believe is the first, verification of a JIT compiler with respect to a realistic semantics of self-modifying x86 machine code. Our semantics includes a model of the instruction cache. Two versions of the verified JIT compiler are presented: one generates all of the machine code at once, the other one is incremental i.e. produces code on-demand. All proofs have been performed inside the HOL4 theorem prover.

Multiprocessors are now dominant, but real multiprocessors do not provide the sequentially consistent memory that is assumed by most work on semantics and verification. Instead, they have subtle relaxed (or weak) memory models, usually described only in ambiguous prose, leading to widespread confusion.

Realistic formal specifications of machine languages for commercial processors consist of thousands of lines of definitions. Current methods support trustworthy proofs of the correctness of programs for one such specification. However, these methods provide little or no support for reusing proofs of the same algorithm implemented in different machine languages. We describe an approach, based on proof-producing decompilation, which both makes machine-code verification tractable and supports proof reuse between different languages. We briefly present examples based on detailed models of machine code for ARM, PowerPC and x86. The theories and tools have been implemented in the HOL4 system.

Invariant based programming is an approach to program construction where we provide the program pre- and postconditions as well as loop invariants before we construct the code itself. This approach allows us to construct a program and its correctness proof hand in hand. We describe here an extension to an existing mathematics editor that supports this style of program construction. The main help that the tool provides is automatic simplification of verification conditions that are generated in the programming process. The tool shows the user a check list of those conditions that it was not able to prove automatically. The user can use this check list to complete the proof (either manually or using an interactive theorem prover) or to find errors in the program.