arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2011.10373

A Comparison of Big-step Semantics Definition Styles

Péter Bereczky·Dániel Horpácsi·Simon Thompson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Formal semantics provides rigorous, mathematically precise definitions of programming languages, with which we can argue about program behaviour and program equivalence by formal means; in particular, we can describe and verify our arguments with a proof assistant. There are various approaches to giving formal semantics to programming languages, at different abstraction levels and applying different mathematical machinery: the reason for using the semantics determines which approach to choose. In this paper we investigate some of the approaches that share their roots with traditional relational big-step semantics, such as (a) functional big-step semantics (or, equivalently, a definitional interpreter), (b) pretty-big-step semantics and (c) traditional natural semantics. We compare these approaches with respect to the following criteria: executability of the semantics definition, proof complexity for typical properties (e.g. determinism) and the conciseness of expression equivalence proofs in that approach. We also briefly discuss the complexity of these definitions and the coinductive big-step semantics, which enables reasoning about divergence. To enable the comparison in practice, we present an example language for comparing the semantics: a sequential subset of Core Erlang, a functional programming language, which is used in the intermediate steps of the Erlang/OTP compiler. We have already defined a relational big-step semantics for this language that includes treatment of exceptions and side effects. The aim of this current work is to compare our big-step definition for this language with a variety of other equivalent semantics in different styles from the point of view of testing and verifying code refactorings.

Explore related subjects

cs.PL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Péter Bereczky, Dániel Horpácsi, Simon Thompson. 2020-11-20. A Comparison of Big-step Semantics Definition Styles. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10373

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

UnsafeChecker: Finding Soundness Bugs in Rust Safe Abstractions

Rust guarantees memory safety without garbage collection through a strict ownership and borrowing system. However, for low-level systems programming, many widely used libraries rely on the unsafe keyword. These libraries encapsulate raw-pointer operations behind safe APIs to form safe abstractions. A single mistake in this internal unsafe code can break its safety contract, rendering the abstraction unsound and allowing safe clients to trigger undefined behavior. Detecting these potential soundness violations is challenging. Existing static analysis tools for C/C++ ignore Rust-specific safety contracts, while current Rust tools lack the deep semantic modeling required to track the contexts that raw pointers erase. To address this gap, we present UnsafeChecker, a compiler-integrated static analysis framework for detecting potential soundness violations in Rust safe abstractions. UnsafeChecker analyzes Rust MIR using a flow-sensitive abstract interpretation that maintains a shared state with three components: ownership, object validity, and layout. Each warning rule consumes the subset of facts needed for the corresponding Rust safety obligation. UnsafeChecker reports both instruction-level undefined behavior and boundary-level contract violations that may escape through safe APIs. We evaluate UnsafeChecker on a benchmark of 46 RustSec vulnerabilities, which contain 53 ground-truth bugs. UnsafeChecker outperforms several state-of-the-art tools, detecting 32 CVEs and covering 36 bugs (67.9% recall) with 51.6% alert-level precision. Furthermore, in a large-scale scan of real-world crates on crates.io, UnsafeChecker uncovered 114 previously unknown bugs across 83 crates, with 45 confirmed and 27 already fixed by maintainers.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

Mapping Dynamic, Hierarchical Quantum Circuits

Qubit mapping is a critical pass in quantum compilation. Despite various advances, dynamic circuits, those exhibiting data dependent control-flow, often resulting from qubit measurements, are not yet supported by the vast majority of available qubit mappers. The crucial limitation to overcome is the dependence on flat, one-dimensional representations of circuits. Further, qubit mappers currently lack compiler abstractions that capture the hierarchical nature of circuits, hindering the qubit mapping process. In this paper, 1 we introduce a new qubit mapping method and analyses to tackle hierarchical dynamic circuits. Our novelty resides in four key aspects: modeling (statically) sub-circuits in disjoint control-flow paths, introducing a novel Qubit Reconciliation pass to maintain consistency between sub-circuit and control-flow boundaries, a loop-entry remapping pass, and a refined cost function enhanced for SWAP count, circuit depth, circuit latency and error. We demonstrate the efficiency of our approach on a wide range of dynamic circuits on two monolithic Quantum Processing Units of 127 and 156 qubits, and on chiplet hexagon-based QPUs. On monolithic QPUs, our qubit mapper improves the SWAP count by up to 52%, depth by up to 18%, latency by up to 18.6%, and error by up to 40%. On chiplet architectures, we achieve improvements of up to 36% on SWAP count, 8.7% on depth, 15% on latency, and 15% of error.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

Erased Postulates, Identity Types and Quotients

This text is concerned with the question of whether, in type theory with erasure annotations, one can postulate that some type is inhabited and still have a guarantee that a program will not get stuck. Previous work has provided such guarantees for consistent erased postulates, i.e. postulates that are restricted to be used in erased contexts. Here those guarantees are extended to type theory with identity types. Similar ideas provide a simple way to support quotient types: it is shown that one can let things like "the equivalence classes for two related values are equal" be erased postulates and have an eliminator that only computes for the equivalence class constructor, and still get a guarantee that programs will compute correctly. Another question is whether programs compute correctly if one is allowed to transport (cast) using erased identity proofs. It is shown that this is safe in the absence of quotients and postulates, and in the presence of quotients and erased postulates that can be implemented using equality reflection. However, unrestricted transports of this kind are not compatible with erased, postulated univalence. For that reason the text includes a study of the function []-cong, which encapsulates a limited form of transport for erased identity proofs. The text is accompanied by machine-checked Agda proofs.

cs.PL↗