|
| 1 | +======================================================================== |
| 2 | +Tactic: ``while`` |
| 3 | +======================================================================== |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +The ``while`` tactic applies to program-logic goals where the next |
| 6 | +statement to reason about is a ``while`` loop. |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +Applying ``while`` replaces the original goal with proof obligations that let |
| 9 | +you reason about the loop via an invariant (and, in some variants, a |
| 10 | +termination variant). Intuitively, you prove that the invariant is preserved |
| 11 | +by one iteration of the loop, and you then use the invariant to justify what |
| 12 | +follows once the loop condition becomes false. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +.. contents:: |
| 15 | + :local: |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 18 | +Variant: Hoare logic |
| 19 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +.. admonition:: Syntax |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | + ``while ({formula})`` |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +The formula is a loop invariant. It may reference variables of the program. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Applying this form of ``while`` generates (at least) the following goals: |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +- **Preservation goal (one iteration):** assuming the invariant holds and the |
| 30 | + loop condition is true, executing the loop body re-establishes the invariant. |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +- **Exit/continuation goal:** you must show that the invariant holds when the |
| 33 | + loop is entered, and that when the loop condition becomes false, the |
| 34 | + invariant is strong enough to derive the desired postcondition. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 37 | + :title: Hoare logic example |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | + require import AllCore. |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | + module M = { |
| 42 | + proc sumsq(n : int) : int = { |
| 43 | + var x, i; |
| 44 | + x <- 0; |
| 45 | + i <- 0; |
| 46 | + while (i < n) { |
| 47 | + x <- x + (i + 1); |
| 48 | + i <- i + 1; |
| 49 | + } |
| 50 | + return x; |
| 51 | + } |
| 52 | + }. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | + lemma ex_while_hl (n : int) : |
| 55 | + hoare [M.sumsq : 0 <= n ==> 0 <= res]. |
| 56 | + proof. |
| 57 | + proc. |
| 58 | + (*$*) while (0 <= i <= n /\ 0 <= x). |
| 59 | + - admit. |
| 60 | + - admit. |
| 61 | + qed. |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 64 | +Variant: Probabilistic relational Hoare logic (one-sided) |
| 65 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +.. admonition:: Syntax |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | + ``while {side} {formula} {expr}`` |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +Here `{formula}` is a relational invariant, and `{expr}` is an integer-valued |
| 72 | +termination variant. This variant applies when the designated program by |
| 73 | +``{side}`` ends with a `while` loop. |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +Applying this form of ``while`` generates two main goals: |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +- **Loop-body goal (designated side):** assuming the invariant holds and the |
| 78 | + loop condition is true, executing the loop body re-establishes the |
| 79 | + invariant and decreases the variant. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +- **Remaining relational goal:** the loop is removed from the designated |
| 82 | + program, and the postcondition is strengthened with the invariant together |
| 83 | + with pure logical conditions connecting loop exit to the desired |
| 84 | + postcondition. |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +.. ecproof:: |
| 87 | + :title: Relational example (shape) |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | + require import AllCore. |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | + module M = { |
| 92 | + proc sumsq(n : int) : int = { |
| 93 | + var x, i; |
| 94 | + x <- 0; |
| 95 | + i <- 0; |
| 96 | + while (i < n) { |
| 97 | + x <- x + (i + 1); |
| 98 | + i <- i + 1; |
| 99 | + } |
| 100 | + return x; |
| 101 | + } |
| 102 | + }. |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | + lemma ex_while_prhl : |
| 105 | + equiv [ M.sumsq ~ M.sumsq : ={n} ==> res{1} = res{2} ]. |
| 106 | + proof. |
| 107 | + proc. |
| 108 | + (*$*) while{1} (true) (0). |
| 109 | + - admit. |
| 110 | + - admit. |
| 111 | + qed. |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 114 | +Variant: Probabilistic Hoare logic |
| 115 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +.. admonition:: Syntax |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | + ``while {formula} {expr}`` |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +Here ``{formula}`` is an invariant and ``{expr}`` is an integer termination |
| 122 | +variant. |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +At a high level, this variant generates obligations analogous to the |
| 125 | +designated relational case, but for a single program: |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +- a probabilistic goal for the loop body showing preservation of the |
| 128 | + invariant and strict progress of the variant, and |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +- a remaining goal for the code before the loop, whose postcondition is |
| 131 | + strengthened with the invariant plus pure logical conditions that connect |
| 132 | + loop exit to the desired postcondition. |
0 commit comments