Open MattWindsor91 opened 7 years ago
@septract suggests this wouldn't buy us much, if I recall correctly.
I think it's only worth doing if we're going to treat ghost code differently somehow. Otherwise what's the point?
On Monday, 20 February 2017, Matt Windsor notifications@github.com wrote:
@septract https://github.com/septract suggests this wouldn't buy us much, if I recall correctly.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/septract/starling-tool/issues/140#issuecomment-281141198, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANd9m9gm-FW8UJeVCtC8LyKRWPCZhsRks5redBSgaJpZM4L4UvP .
It might be nice, especially for Vafeiadis-style linearisability proofs, to be able to distinguish between actual code and ghost code syntactically.
Something like (to use the CLH lock as an example):
Starling would statically check against the use of ghost variables in normal code, or ordinary variables as lvalues in ghost code.