Peter D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Technical Report MD-30, DAIMI, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Introduction 1.1 Denotational semantics and semantics implementation systems Twenty years ago, when denotational semantics was developed [23, 37] there were high hopes for it to be used to specify most, if not all programming languages. When Mosses developed his Semantics Implementation System [25], it was with the explicit goal of generating compilers from denotational specifications. Time passed, and these hopes did not materialize as concretely as was wished. Other semantic frameworks are used today, and other associated semanticsimplementation systems as well. Two explanations could be ....

....and (2) the # notation of denotational semantics was deemed untamable indeed writing a denotational specification can be compared to writing a program in a module less, lazy functional language without automatic type checker. As for semantics implementation systems, there have been many [1, 13, 16, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40], and they were all quite complicated. Note: this list of references is by no means exhaustive. It is merely meant to be indicative. 1.2 Partial evaluation For a while, partial evaluation has held some promise for compiling and compiler generation, through the Futamura projections [17, 18] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Peter D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Technical Report MD-30, DAIMI, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....compiler from L s to L t , whereas the second scheme works as a semanticdriven compiler generator, i.e. a full compiler generator, not a parser generator, like Yacc [Joh75] and many others. There are several reports on automatic semantic driven compiler generation. The first is [Mos75] see also [Mos79]) followed by [JS80] In the 1990 s we distinguish [RFP94] Mos94] and [Gue95] Jor92] generates a compiler by partial evaluating an L s interpreter, which can also be understood as a semantic specification. 5.2 The Specification Language The STS system has two inputs: P.L s , the program to ....

Peter D. Mosses. "SIS --- Semantic Implementation System". Daimi md-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979.

....This differs from CLaReT in the style of semantics and in targeting model checkers rather than theorem provers. 6. 4 Semantics Directed Compiler Generators There have been a number of attempts to generate compilers from denotational semantic specifications including early work by Mosses [Mos79] and later by Paulson [Pau82] Wand [Wan84] and Lee [Lee89] One tool in current use is Actress [BMW92] a semantics directed compiler generator for Mosses action semantics [Mos92] This uses ML Lex and ML Yacc to generate a parser, so its syntactic specification is at a lower level than in ....

P. D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Departmental Report DAIMI MD-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1979.

....generation There have been a number of attempts to generate compilers from semantic specifications in the denotational style. Early systems merely expanded the program into a lambda calculus expression representing its denotation, which was then either directly interpreted, as in Mosses SIS [18], or compiled into SECD machine code, as in Paulson s compiler generator [19] No distinction was made between static and dynamic semantics in the language specification, though a compile time beta reducer could signal static errors before execution time. Lee and Pleban have taken a somewhat ....

P. Mosses. SIS -- Semantics Implementation System. Technical Report DAIMI MD-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, August 1979.

....5.2.1 Denotational semantics and semantics implementation systems Twenty years ago, when denotational semantics was developed [50, 69] there were high hopes for it to be used to specify most, if not all programming languages. When Mosses developed his Semantics Implementation System [53], it was with the explicit goal of generating compilers from denotational specifications. Time passed, and these hopes did not materialize as concretely as was wished. Other semantic frameworks are used today, and other associated semantics implementation systems as well. Two explanations could ....

....and (2) the notation of denotational semantics was deemed 65 untamable indeed writing a denotational specification can be compared to writing a program in a module less, lazy functional language without automatic type checker. As for semantics implementation systems, there have been many [1, 28, 41, 48, 53, 57, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73], and they were all quite complicated. Note: this list of references is by no means exhaustive. It is merely meant to be indicative. 5.2.2 Partial evaluation For a while, partial evaluation has held some promise for compiling and compiler generation, through the Futamura projections [42, 43] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Peter D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Technical Report MD-30, DAIMI, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....Introduction 1.1 Denotational semantics and semantics implementation systems Twenty years ago, when denotational semantics was developed [27, 45] there were high hopes for it to be used to specify most, if not all programming languages. When Mosses developed his Semantics Implementation System [29], it was with the explicit goal of generating compilers from denotational specifications. Time passed, and these hopes did not materialize as concretely as was wished. Other semantic frameworks are used today, and other associated semantics implementation systems as well. Briefly stated, 1) ....

....and (2) the notation of denotational semantics was deemed untamable indeed writing a denotational specification can be compared to writing a program in a module less, lazy functional language without automatic type checker. As for semantics implementation systems, there have been many [1, 14, 20, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48], and they were all quite complicated. Note: this list of references is by no means exhaustive. It is merely meant to be indicative. 1.2 Partial evaluation For a while, partial evaluation has held some promise for compiling and compiler generation, through the Futamura projections [13, 22] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Peter D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Technical Report MD-30, DAIMI, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....optimizations, such as arithmetic simplification, or transformations to another form, such as assembly code, could be implemented in the same fashion. 5 Related work Our work was inspired by work in many different areas. Derivation of compilers from specifications and the use of action semantics [19, 23, 11, 22]; the use of monads to structure programs in general [18, 31, 26] and language implementations in particular [32, 27, 14] staged programming [5, 6] and its use in structuring compilers [29, 20, 4] partial evaluation [34, 17, 1, 3, 2, 9] higher order abstract syntax and pattern matching [16, 7] ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS-semantics implementation system, reference manual and users guide. Technical Report DAIMI report MD-30, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....it separates the computations for static semantics from those for dynamic semantics which may be iterated for interpretation. The topic of integrated compiler and interpreter generation has been investigated since the midth of the seventies. Most of the semantics directed compiler generators [10,12] are based on the method of denotational semantics [14] A denotational specification describes a mapping from the abstract syntax to a functional expression. Its evaluation yields the effect of program execution. An interpreter can be obtained immediately by implementing the description in a ....

Mosses, P. D., "SIS - Semantics Implementation System," Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Technical Report DAIMI MD-30, 1979.

....order of monad transformers (in particular, some cases involving ContT) has an impact on the resulting semantics. In practice, we need to make sure when we discard monad transformers, that the resulting change of ordering does not have unwanted effects on semantics. 6 Related work Early efforts [22] [27] 34] in semantics directed compiler generation were based on traditional denotational semantics. Mosses s Action Semantics [24] allows modular specification of programming language semantics, from which efficient compilers can be generated. In action semantics, source language constructs are ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS---semantics implementation system, reference manual and user's guide. Technical Report DAIMI report MD-30, University of Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....1 Introduction Generating compilers from formal specifications of programming languages has for a long time been a research goal in the compiler writing community. Several efforts to generate compilers from denotational semantics specifications, starting with the SIS system by Peter Mosses 1979 [15], have resulted in compilers and code that run very slowly usually a factor of 1000 slower than for commercial compilers, and also do not interface to commercial product quality parsers or optimizing code generators. Another problem has been the poor modularization of denota1. This work was ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS - Semantic Implementation System. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, 1979. TR DAIMI MD-30.

....action notation, and it outputs compilers that emit code in an abstract RISC machine language. The traditional approach to compiler generation is based on denotational semantics [53] Examples of existing compiler generators based on this idea include Mosses Semantics Implementation System (SIS) [29], Paulson s Semantics Processor (PSP) 45, 46] and Wand s Semantic Prototyping System (SPS) 62] In SIS, the lambda expressions are executed by a direct implementation of beta reduction; in PSP and SPS they are compiled into SECD and Scheme code, respectively. There are no considerations of the ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS---semantics implementation system. Technical Report Daimi MD--30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979. Out of print.

....preserving with respect to the semantics. With a verified compiler generator we use the formal semantics as input programs and generate a trusted compiler in the same manner as a verified compiler produces trusted object code. 3.3. 1 Early Work Early work in semantics directed compiler generation[48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53] concentrated on the use of denotational semantics. These systems produced compilers whose object code ran at least three orders of magnitude slower than that produced by handwritten compilers and only the system of Gomard and Jones[51] was proven correct. This system, however, produced compilers ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS -- semantics implementation system. Technical Report Daimi MD-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979.

....see figure 1. This approach is usually called semantics directed compiler generation. The traditional approach to compiler generation is based on denotational semantics [37] Examples of existing compiler generators based on this idea include Mosses Semantics Implementation System (SIS) [17], Paulson s Semantics Processor (PSP) 31, 32] and Wand s Semantic Prototyping System (SPS) 44] Denotational semantics has achieved much popularity as a vehicle for theoretical studies, but it is also recognized to be neither flexible nor readable, see for example the discussions by Mosses ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS---semantics implementation system. Technical Report Daimi MD--30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979. Out of print.

....procedures, block structure, and subtyping, a la Reynolds [47] Thus this technique of type directed compilation scales up in practice. In that sense, type directed partial evaluation provides a simple and effective solution to (denotational) semantics directed compilation in the calculus [32, 43]. 2.4 Residualizing the residualizer To visualize the effect of residualization, one can residualize the residualizer with respect to a type. As a first approximation, given a type t, we want to evaluate (residualize (lambda (v) residualize v t) t) To this end, we first need to define an ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. Technical Report MD-30, DAIMI, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....used the generated action compiler in an action semantics directed compiler generator. The generated compilers produce target code that, by comparison with measurements reported in [13] is at least ten times faster than that produced by the compilers generated by the classical systems of Mosses [15], Paulson, 23] and Wand [24] but still around 100 times slower than target programs produced by handwritten compilers. None the classical systems of Mosses, Paulson, and Wand include a binding time analysis. Binding time analysis enables computations to take place at compile time and it is an ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS---semantics implementation system. Technical Report Daimi MD--30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979. Out of print.

....Introduction Much of the work done previously in compiler correctness concerns restricted subsets of imperative languages. Some studies involve machine checked correctness e.g. Cohn [1] 2] A lot of research has been devoted to the construction of compiler compilers as in the work of Mosses [6] Paulson [10] and Wand [20] A recent attempt in this field is reported in [9] Developing a proof of compiler correctness for a higher order functional language is made considerably more difficult by the need to use inclusive predicates to relate an operational semantics (or a continuation ....

P.D. Mosses. SIS -- semantics implementation system. Technical Report DAIMI MD-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1979.

....mapping [16, 35, 30] They map the representation of programs as abstract syntax trees into the representation of their meaning as lambdaexpressions. Lacking a static dynamic distinction in the semantic specification, it is not clear how to simplify the resulting lambda expressions [26]. For this reason compile time actions are likely to be performed at run time, thereby impeding the performances of the whole system. This specific problem gets solved by distinguishing static and dynamic semantics soundly in semantic specifications [28] As a static semantics processor, a ....

....and to producing a representation of the operations the program specifies. In other terms, compiling a program amounts to dividing the representation of its formal meaning into compile time and run time forms, and to reducing the former while emitting a representation of the latter as object code [26]. It is only natural to compile programs with a program [16] Next section describes how to derive such a compiler from the semantics of a programming language. Semantics directed compiler generation A naive semantics based compiler is organized in several phases: one mapping source programs to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Mosses. SIS -- Semantics Implementation System, reference manual and user guide. University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979. Version 1.0.

....mean more than just a tool to help humans write compilers. Given a specification of a programming language, for example, a formal semantics or an interpreter, our goal is automatically and correctly to transform it into a compiler from the specified source language into another target language [32,35]. Traditional compiler writing tools such as parser generators and attribute grammar evaluators are not semantics directed, even though they can and do produce compilers as output. These systems are extremely useful in practice but it is entirely up to their users to ensure generation of ....

.... a large partial evaluator was developed in Sweden for Lisp as used in practice, including imperative features and property lists [5] and a partial evaluator for Prolog [28] Trends to recognize partial evaluation as an important tool appeared among dedicated builders of compiler generators [32] [35] A wide range of languages has been covered in recent years, including first order functional languages [6] 12] 24] 37] higher order languages including Scheme [10] 18] 43] typed languages [29] logic programming including Prolog [28] 38] 39] a term rewriting language [8] and ....

P. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system, reference manual and user guide. DAIMI Report MD-30, DAIMI, University of Arhus, Denmark, 1979.

....overall performance of the system, or indeed, address the weaknesses of the classical approach outlined below. 3.3 Denotational Semantics 35 3.3.1. 2 Mosses Semantics Implementation System Mosses was the first person to develop a system that translates a language specification into an compiler[Mos79]. His Semantics Implementation System, SIS, generates a compiler from a front end specification and a semantic specification, called an encoder. The semantic specification is written in a notation called DSL, which uses a notation similar to l calculus, called LAMB, to specify the meaning of each ....

P. D. Mosses. SIS --- semantics implementation system. DAIMI MD-30, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.

....compiler are presented. 1 Introduction The high abstraction level of denotational semantics makes it attractive as a language specification formalism. However, many efforts to generate compilers from denotational semantics specifications, starting with the SIS system by Peter Mosses 1979 [12], have resulted in compilers and code that run very slowly often 100 to 1000 times slower compared to commercial compilers, and that also do not interface to commercial productquality parsers or code generators. The situation has gradually improved through the work of several researchers, e.g. ....

Peter D. Mosses. SIS - Semantic Implementation System. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, 1979. TR DAIMI MD-30.

.... [107] For another example, Deutsch s interactive program verifier, like many other theorem provers, includes a simplification phase performing static reductions [41] Mosses s compiler generator SIS includes a phase for compiler generation time reductions and allows for compile time reductions [87]. Appel s technique of reopening closures explicitly aims at specializing functions at compile time [4] In fact, Lombardi and Raphael s main tool in their pioneer work on incremental computation was partial evaluation [81] The investigations above have one point in common: they use program ....

P. Mosses. SIS -- Semantics Implementation System, reference manual and user guide. University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, 1979. Version 1.0.

No context found.

#1#:55#92, July 1991. #19# Peter D. Mosses. SIS-semantics implementation system, reference manual and users guide. Technical Report DAIMI report MD-30, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark,

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC