Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing

SAT 2018: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018 pp 365–382Cite as

Effective Use of SMT Solvers for Program Equivalence Checking Through Invariant-Sketching and Query-Decomposition

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10929))

Abstract

Program equivalence checking is a fundamental problem in computer science with applications to translation validation and automatic synthesis of compiler optimizations. Contemporary equivalence checkers employ SMT solvers to discharge proof obligations generated by their equivalence checking algorithm. Equivalence checkers also involve algorithms to infer invariants that relate the intermediate states of the two programs being compared for equivalence. We present a new algorithm, called invariant-sketching, that allows the inference of the required invariants through the generation of counter-examples using SMT solvers. We also present an algorithm, called query-decomposition, that allows a more capable use of SMT solvers for application to equivalence checking. Both invariant-sketching and query-decomposition help us prove equivalence across program transformations that could not be handled by previous equivalence checking algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For assembly code, variables represent registers, stack and memory regions.

  2. 2.

    A DAG is a more compact representation of an expression tree where identical subtrees in the same tree are merged into one canonical node.

References

  1. Necula, G.C.: Translation validation for an optimizing compiler. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2000, pp. 83–94. ACM, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tristan, J.B., Govereau, P., Morrisett, G.: Evaluating value-graph translation validation for LLVM. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, pp. 295–305. ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tate, R., Stepp, M., Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Equality saturation: a new approach to optimization. In: POPL 2009: Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 264–276. ACM, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bansal, S., Aiken, A.: Automatic generation of peephole superoptimizers. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS XII, pp. 394–403. ACM, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schkufza, E., Sharma, R., Aiken, A.: Stochastic superoptimization. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS 2013, pp. 305–316. ACM, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dahiya, M., Bansal, S.: Black-box equivalence checking across compiler optimizations. In: Chang, B.-Y.E. (ed.) APLAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10695, pp. 127–147. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71237-6_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Zuck, L., Pnueli, A., Goldberg, B., Barrett, C., Fang, Y., Hu, Y.: Translation and run-time validation of loop transformations. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 27(3), 335–360 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma, R., Schkufza, E., Churchill, B., Aiken, A.: Data-driven equivalence checking. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages & Applications, OOPSLA 2013, pp. 391–406. ACM, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Padhi, S., Sharma, R., Millstein, T.: Data-driven precondition inference with learned features. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2016, pp. 42–56. ACM, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard - version 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Edinburgh, Scotland (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M.: Houdini, an annotation assistant for ESC/Java. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 500–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45251-6_29

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Warren, H.S.: Hacker’s Delight. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leroy, X.: Formal certification of a compiler back-end, or: programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In: 33rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 42–54. ACM Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dahiya, M., Bansal, S.: Modeling undefined behaviour semantics for checking equivalence across compiler optimizations. In: Strichman, O., Tzoref-Brill, R. (eds.) HVC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10629, pp. 19–34. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70389-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Dutertre, B.: Yices 2.2. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 737–744. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Henning, J.L.: SPEC CPU2000: measuring CPU performance in the new millennium. Computer 33(7), 28–35 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Popek, G.J., Goldberg, R.P.: Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun. ACM 17(7), 412–421 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Cadar, C., Dunbar, D., Engler, D.: KLEE: unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2008, pp. 209–224. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kundu, S., Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalence. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2009, pp. 327–337. ACM, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tate, R., Stepp, M., Lerner, S.: Generating compiler optimizations from proofs. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2010, pp. 389–402. ACM, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bansal, S., Aiken, A.: Binary translation using peephole superoptimizers. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2008, pp. 177–192. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Massalin, H.: Superoptimizer: a look at the smallest program. In: ASPLOS 1987: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp. 122–126 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Phothilimthana, P.M., Thakur, A., Bodik, R., Dhurjati, D.: Scaling up superoptimization. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS 2016, pp. 297–310. ACM, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sharma, R., Schkufza, E., Churchill, B., Aiken, A.: Conditionally correct superoptimization. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2015, pp. 147–162. ACM, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sulflow, A., Kuhne, U., Fey, G., Grosse, D., Drechsler, R.: WoLFram- a word level framework for formal verification. In: 2009 IEEE/IFIP International Symposium on Rapid System Prototyping, pp. 11–17, June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jha, S., Limaye, R., Seshia, S.A.: Beaver: engineering an efficient SMT solver for bit-vector arithmetic. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 668–674. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Sharma, R., Gupta, S., Hariharan, B., Aiken, A., Liang, P., Nori, A.V.: A data driven approach for algebraic loop invariants. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 574–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen, T., Antonopoulos, T., Ruef, A., Hicks, M.: Counterexample-guided approach to finding numerical invariants. In: Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2017, pp. 605–615. ACM, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ernst, M.D., Perkins, J.H., Guo, P.J., McCamant, S., Pacheco, C., Tschantz, M.S., Xiao, C.: The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Sci. Comput. Program. 69(1–3), 35–45 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Preiner, M., Niemetz, A., Biere, A.: Counterexample-guided model synthesis. In: Legay, A., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10205, pp. 264–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54577-5_15

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Černý, P., Henzinger, T.A., Kovács, L., Radhakrishna, A., Zwirchmayr, J.: Segment abstraction for worst-case execution time analysis. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) ESOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9032, pp. 105–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46669-8_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Shubhani Gupta, Aseem Saxena, Anmol Mahajan & Sorav Bansal

Authors
  1. Shubhani Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aseem Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anmol Mahajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sorav Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shubhani Gupta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany

    Olaf Beyersdorff

  2. Microsoft Research Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Christoph M. Wintersteiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gupta, S., Saxena, A., Mahajan, A., Bansal, S. (2018). Effective Use of SMT Solvers for Program Equivalence Checking Through Invariant-Sketching and Query-Decomposition. In: Beyersdorff, O., Wintersteiger, C. (eds) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018. SAT 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10929. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94143-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94144-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation