F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Conference Record of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Boston MA, January 1973.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....have a substantial impact on the time to run an optimization. The best solution would be to prove the compiler sound, meaning that for any input program, the compiler always produces an equivalent output program. Optimizations, and sometimes even complete compilers, have been proven sound by hand [1, 2, 15, 13, 8, 23, 3, 11]. However, manually proving large parts of a compiler sound requires a lot of e#ort and theoretical skill on the part of the compiler writer. In addition, these proofs are usually done for optimizations as written on paper, and bugs may still arise when the algorithms are implemented from the ....

....language were augmented with pointers) or optimizations like PRE would instead require writing more complicated guards, and some optimizations we support may not be expressible by Lacey. As mentioned in the introduction, much other work has been done on manually proving optimizations correct [13, 15, 1, 2, 8, 23, 3]. Transformations have also been proven correct mechanically, but not automatically: the transformation is proven sound using an interactive theorem prover, which requires user involvement. For example, Young [34] has proven a code generator correct using the Boyer Moore theorem prover enhanced ....

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Conference Record of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Boston MA, January 1973.

....such as the compiler itself or the Linux kernel. We believe that the price of such an infrastructure is small considering the qualitative increase in the ability to isolate compilation errors during compiler testing and maintenance. 1 Introduction Despite a large body of work [CM75, MP67, Mor73, Moo89, You89, WO92] in the area of compiler veri cation we are still far from being able to prove automatically that a given optimizing compiler always produces target programs that are semantically equivalent to their source versions. But if we cannot prove that a compiler is always correct ....

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 144-152, 1973.

....language semantics, machine semantics, and the definition of the compiler. L compiler Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma fl T y y M ffi Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma decoding U Figure 1: The Morris Diagram The algebraic approach was further developed in [14], where compiler correctness is characterised as the commutativity of the diagram in Figure 1 known as the Morris Diagram. In that diagram, the nodes are algebras and the arrows are homomorphisms. The arrow denotes the semantics of the programming language, while the arrow denotes the semantics ....

....of a function value like ( E ; x; x 1) In this case there is no homomorphism ffi that makes the Morris Diagram commute. This example will be fully illustrated later on. The approach initiated by Morris inspired several investigations which set out to extend and improve the ideas presented in [14]. In [19] the ADJ group proposes the use of a homomorphism ffl : M U (of encoding) to replace the homomorphism ffi : U M in the Morris Diagram. A motivation for using ffl is to overcome the limitations of the original diagram for cases like the function values discussed above. Suppose fl ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Proceedings SIGACT/SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, October 1973. 34

....of Hoare et al. Hoa91, HHS93] on which our work is based is the proposal to use such a description together with a refinement algebra related to the source language [HHH 87, Mor88] for reasoning about code generator correctness. From more classic work about compiler correctness [MP67, Mor73, TWW81, Joy90] we are distinguished by aiming at code for an actual processor and not for idealized hardware. E. Borger et al. BDR94] are also concerned with proving correct compilation of occam to the transputer. Their emphasis, however, is more on a mathematical understanding of its specific ....

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Proc. ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, Boston, Mass., pages 144--152, 1973.

....also section 5) One of the contributions of Hoare et al. 27, 29] on which our work is based is the proposal to use such a description together with a refinement algebra related to the source language [28, 50] for the reasoning about compilers. From more classical work about compiler correctness [47, 52, 74, 35] we are distinguished by aiming at code for an actual processor and not for idealized hardware, a goal shared with E. Borger et al. 6] who are also concerned with proving correct compilation of occam. We try to accurately reflect the restrictions imposed by the hardware. The additional ....

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Proc. ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, Boston, Mass., pages 144--152, 1973.

....can have in a generated compiler. Let us therefore examine the major previous approaches to compiler correctness proofs. 2. 2 Compiler Correctness Proofs The traditional approach to proving compiler correctness is based on denotational semantics [24, 26, 58, 51, 39] or algebraic variations hereof [7, 28, 59, 3, 30]. The correctness statement can be pictured as a commuting diagram, see figure 2. It has been demonstrated that complete proofs of compiler correctness can be automatically checked. Two significant instances are Young s [65] work, using the Boyer Moore theorem prover, and Joyce s [19, 18] work ....

Francis Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 144-- 152, 1973.

....the Mess system, such a proof must be given afresh for each new language because new actions often have to be introduced and defined. Work on compiler correctness does not seem to be of much help because it usually focuses on denotational semantics [13, 15, 41, 36, 27] algebraic variations hereof [3, 16, 42, 2, 18], structural operational semantics [6] or natural semantics [4] We are aware of only one compiler generator that has been proved correct: the one obtained by self application of the partial evaluator mix, see the paper by Gomard and Jones [7] Unfortunately, the generated compilers emit code for ....

Francis Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 144--152, 1973.

No context found.

F. Lockwood Morris. Advice on structuring compilers and proving them correct. In Conference Record of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Boston MA, January 1973.

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