From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 300DA7EE4B for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 14:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.216.49; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com"; x-sender="mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.49; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com"; x-sender="mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-qa0-f49.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.216.49; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="mukeshtiwari.iiitm@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-qa0-f49.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq8CAEAbSFLRVdgxlGdsb2JhbABZDoMxUoMptQuIQoEZCBYOAQEBAQcLCwkSKoIlAQEEASMdARsRDAEDAQsGAwIEAQYmAg8CAiIBEQEFARwGCwiHcwEDCQYMjSmPVYwBUYMKg28KGScNZIkAAQUMj0UHIAcCgkGBOAOJN45IgS+OYBgphA5HNIEQHg X-IPAS-Result: Aq8CAEAbSFLRVdgxlGdsb2JhbABZDoMxUoMptQuIQoEZCBYOAQEBAQcLCwkSKoIlAQEEASMdARsRDAEDAQsGAwIEAQYmAg8CAiIBEQEFARwGCwiHcwEDCQYMjSmPVYwBUYMKg28KGScNZIkAAQUMj0UHIAcCgkGBOAOJN45IgS+OYBgphA5HNIEQHg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1004,1371074400"; d="scan'208";a="34784011" Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Sep 2013 14:26:07 +0200 Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k15so1615858qaq.15 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/S3PAPLHQAgkW3XcQtvbrShrSjTLyivCcJQEeCAKNgY=; b=VFG/hRBNRube/i25tEZfGJngcgJdTfVOc9jD70meJj76iYMpTGF0ZJxhkypgwFz566 exfKlDtU7vaoMcg6c2HS4s8/TBFWd7rFWE9i1SZyQ7sa6cVT7K88wjvS9b/d5yOWDBaY 5ukTgPWs0kKsyMuNL+ukxg+Dp5+enPJY7LqfNtm8oq1epvbohfmRuON1E1CGSB3nH9ow h1gVJTlk2UsweJNfvO/yIq/ijtUU22jOSmJ8F/1IIsLT22wqbdj5/7WkgITN8gWvUhmE t05UTUjGk4x0phMj2fFjMU4KOpdsXI5ktLhTj7FEk5MthaYW5fE+Fasgq8uzykzRclvs tosQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.112.130 with SMTP id w2mr7444763qap.50.1380457567537; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.159.5 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <37811b09.6ff.141695f3e3c.Coremail.syshen@nudt.edu.cn> References: <37811b09.6ff.141695f3e3c.Coremail.syshen@nudt.edu.cn> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:56:07 +0530 Message-ID: From: mukesh tiwari To: =?UTF-8?B?5rKI6IOc5a6H?= Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c7d8f0f84404e784d2a1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] equivalent checking of ocaml program? --001a11c2c7d8f0f84404e784d2a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Syshen, I am not sure if it's answer to your question but the problem is undecidable although you can use SMT solver to verify both of your program. I don't have idea using SMT solver in OCaml ( right now I am learning it ) but I used it Haskell[1]. You can ask SMT solver to find a counter case for which your both programs are not producing the same output. If it gives you the such case then certainly your both code is not same. -Mukesh Tiwari [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sbv-2.10 On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, =E6=B2=88=E8=83=9C=E5=AE=87 wrote: > Dear all: > > I am working hard to optimize my ocaml program, but I am not sure whether > the significantly modified version is equal to the old version. > > So is there any research work on this topic? > > Shen > --001a11c2c7d8f0f84404e784d2a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Syshen,
I am not sure if it's answer to you= r question but the problem is undecidable although you can use SMT solver t= o verify both of your program. I don't have idea using SMT solver in OC= aml ( right now I am learning it ) but I used it Haskell[1]. You can ask SM= T solver to find a counter case for which your both programs are not produc= ing the same output. If it gives you the such case then certainly your both= code is not same.=C2=A0


-Mukesh Tiwari


On = Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, =E6=B2=88=E8=83=9C=E5=AE=87 <syshen@nudt.ed= u.cn> wrote:
Dear all:

I am working ha= rd to optimize my ocaml program, but I am not sure whether the significantl= y modified version is equal to the old version.

So is there any research work on this topic?
=
Shen

--001a11c2c7d8f0f84404e784d2a1--