Symbolic execution is a program analysis technique to systematically explore all possible paths through a program. The technique can be formally explained by means of small-step transition systems that update symbolic states and compute a precondition corresponding to the taken execution path. In stateful transition systems behavior may depend on previous transitions, which complicates compositional reasoning about programs. To enable compositonal reasoning this paper defines a denotational semantics for symbolic execution. The proposed semantics views a program as a set of traces, each of which has a corresponding substitution — the composition of all its assignments — and a corresponding path condition — the conjunction of all its Boolean tests under appropriate substitution. We prove correspondence between the symbolic denotational semantics and a concrete semantics. We argue that the symbolic denotational semantics is a very natural framework to reason about symbolic execution, and use it to prove that symbolic execution computes (weakest) preconditions. We provide mechanizations in Coq for the main results.

Session types are a type-based approach to the verification of message-passing programs. They have been much studied as type systems for the pi-calculus and for languages such as Java. A session type specifies what and when should be exchanged through a channel. Central to session-typed languages are constructs in types and processes that specify sequencing in protocols. Here we study minimal session types, session types without sequencing. This is arguably the simplest form of session types. By relying on a core process calculus with sessions and higher-order concurrency (abstraction-passing), we prove that every process typable with standard (non minimal) session types can be compiled down into a process typed with minimal session types. This means that having sequencing constructs in both processes and session types is redundant; only sequentiality in processes is indispensable, as it can precisely codify sequentiality in types. Our developments draw inspiration from work by Parrow on behavior-preserving decompositions of untyped processes. By casting Parrow’s results in the realm of typed processes, our results reveal a conceptually simple formulation of session types and a principled avenue to the integration of session types into languages without sequencing in types.