Papers › Leroy and Blazy were right: their memory model soundness proof is automatable...
Leroy and Blazy were right: their memory model soundness proof is automatable (Extended Version)
Pedro Barroso, Mário Pereira, António Ravara
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Xavier Leroy and Sandrine Blazy in 2007 conducted a formal verification, using the Coq proof assistant, of a memory model for low-level imperative languages such as C. Considering their formalization was performed essentially in first-order logic, one question left open by the authors was whether their proofs could be automated using a verification framework for first-order logic. We took the challenge and automated their formalization using Why3, significantly reducing the proof effort. We systematically followed the Coq proofs and realized that in many cases at around one third of the way Why3 was able to discharge all VCs. Furthermore, the proofs still requiring interactions (e.g. induction, witnesses for existential proofs, assertions) were factorized isolating auxiliary results that we stated explicitly. In this way, we achieved an almost-automatic soundness and safety proof of the memory model. Nonetheless, our development allows an extraction of a correct-by-construction concrete memory model, going thus further than the preliminary Why version of Leroy and Blazy.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections