Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "xleroy".
Did you mean:
leroy
2008 Mar 27
0
[LLVMdev] Checked arithmetic
...correct.
My intuition is the same: translation validation sounds far easier than
compiler verification. On the other hand general-purpose translation
validation does not exist (that I know of) whereas the compiler
verification people are making genuine steps forward:
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi-by-topic.html#compcert
> That may be much easier to achieve, but I am not convinced that the LLVM
> team should adopt it as a goal. Their objectives are already complex
> enough.
I agree, I was thinking of this as a separate project based on a fork of
LLVM. If it happened to be w...
2008 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Checked arithmetic
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:10 -0600, John Regehr wrote:
> > Don't forget prover. :-)
>
> Say on that note here's something that I want to see: a formal semantics
> for LLVM in for example higher order logic. This would probably not be
> that difficult.
>
> The problem that this solves is that current verified compiler efforts
> appear to be highly specific to