Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '97 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 206-214, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 1997. ACM Press.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....expressive policy would consider a binding time annotation for functions that depends on the context of each particular call of a function, say. This is basically a polyvariant analysis [10] Several applications bene t from binding time polyvariance, for instance modular program specialization [15], separate compilation via specialization [24,27] and enforcing security properties by specialization [54] However, in its most general form, a polyvariant analysis cannot know in advance how many di erently annotated versions of a function are required. It relies on user guidance or ad hoc ....

Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '97 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 206-214, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 1997. ACM Press.

....expressive policy would consider a binding time annotation for functions that depends on the context of each particular call of a function, say. This is basically a polyvariant analysis [10] Several applications benefit from binding time polyvariance, for instance modular program specialization [15], separate compilation via specialization [24,27] and enforcing security properties by specialization [54] However, in its most general form, a polyvariant analysis cannot know in advance how many di#erently annotated versions of a function are required. It relies on user guidance or ad hoc ....

Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '97 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 206--214, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 1997. ACM Press.

....and the linking combinator recombines the specialized parts to one monolithic program. In our approach the result is a list of compiled parts and we cannot specialize in complete isolation. A quite di erent problem is the specialization of modular programs as considered by Dussart et al. [6]. It considers a subject program divided into modules, and the authors argue that polymorphic binding time analysis combined with the cogen approach to program specialization is the right tool for this endeavor. In contrast, we consider applications where the static data is divided into several ....

Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In PLDI1997 [19], pages 206-214.

....to respecialize a changed part of the input without recompiling dependent modules. This is quite similar to what we point out in Section 8 and deserves further investigation. A related, but quite di erent problem is the specialization of modular programs as considered by Dussart et al. [6]. In this problem the specialized program is divided into modules and the authors argue that polymorphic bindingtime analysis combined with the cogen approach to program specialization is the right tool for this endeavor. In contrast, we consider applications where the static data is divided into ....

Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In PLDI1997

....annotation assigned by the binding time analysis. In contrast, recent developments in binding time analysis have given rise to polymorphic binding time analysis [4] which does not have that restriction. There is an ad hoc implementation of a PGG using an extension of that binding time analysis [3]. To summarize, our contributions are the following: 1. We introduce simple combinators for binding time monovariant generating extensions, using standard ML typed programs. 2. We show how to exploit Gofer s multi parameter constructor classes [7] to implement binding time polyvariant generating ....

....In fact, we are not aware of any specializer for a lazy language which our approach provides for free. Polymorphic binding time analysis [4] results in annotated programs with symbolic annotations. A corresponding program generator propagates actual binding time values at generation time [3]. It cannot benefit from using the natural representation of static values (one important advantage of the PGG approach for typed languages) since the type of such a generator, when written using just ML style parametric polymorphism, cannot express the dependency of the type on the actual ....

Dirk Dussart, Rogardt Heldal, and John Hughes. Module-sensitive program specialisation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '97 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 1997. ACM Press.

....to loop, and ours is no exception. This must be prevented using user annotations, which have to be rethought in a polymorphic context. The full paper will contain details. Polymorphism is particularly important for programs made up of many modules. In earlier work on specialising modules [8, 6, 9] we discovered we needed polymorphic binding time analysis, which directly inspired this work. Our analysis is built on Henglein et al. s earlier polychronic analyses [12, 7] Consel et al. generalised their work in a different direction [4] Binding time analysers for polymorphic programs have ....

D. Dussart, R. Heldal, and J. Hughes. Module-Sensitive Program Specialisation. In Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Las Vegas, June 1997. ACM SIGPLAN.

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