Checking Consistency of Event-driven Traces

August 11, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Asian Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Parosh Aziz Abdulla, Mohamed Faouzi Atig, R. Govind, Samuel Grahn, Ramanathan S. Thinniyam arXiv ID 2508.07855 Category cs.PL: Programming Languages Citations 0 Venue Asian Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Event-driven programming is a popular paradigm where the flow of execution is controlled by two features: (1) shared memory and (2) sending and receiving of messages between multiple handler threads (just called handler). Each handler has a mailbox (modelled as a queue) for receiving messages, with the constraint that the handler processes its messages sequentially. Executions of messages by different handlers may be interleaved. A central problem in this setting is checking whether a candidate execution is consistent with the semantics of event-driven programs. In this paper, we propose an axiomatic semantics for eventdriven programs based on the standard notion of traces (also known as execution graphs). We prove the equivalence of axiomatic and operational semantics. This allows us to rephrase the consistency problem axiomatically, resulting in the event-driven consistency problem: checking whether a given trace is consistent. We analyze the computational complexity of this problem and show that it is NP-complete, even when the number of handler threads is bounded. We then identify a tractable fragment: in the absence of nested posting, where handlers do not post new messages while processing a message, consistency checking can be performed in polynomial time. Finally, we implement our approach in a prototype tool and report on experimental results on a wide range of benchmarks.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Programming Languages

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted