Article

Incremental execution of transformation specifications

Authors:

Ganesh Sittampalam,

Ken Friis LarsenAuthors Info & Claims

POPL '04: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

Pages 26 - 38

https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964004

Published: 01 January 2004 Publication History

Abstract

We aim to specify program transformations in a declarative style, and then to generate executable program transformers from such specifications. Many transformations require non-trivial program analysis to check their applicability, and it is prohibitively expensive to re-run such analyses after each transformation. It is desirable, therefore, that the analysis information is incrementally updated.We achieve this by drawing on two pieces of previous work: first, Bernhard Steffen's proposal to use model checking for certain analysis problems, and second, John Conway's theory of language factors. The first allows the neat specification of transformations, while the second opens the way for an incremental implementation. The two ideas are linked by using regular patterns instead of Steffen's modal logic: these patterns can be viewed as queries on the set of program paths.

References

[1]

U. Aßmann. OPTIMIX --- a tool for rewriting and optimizing programs. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H. J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Volume 2: Applications, Languages and Tools, pages 307--318. World Scientific, 1998.]]

Digital Library

[2]

R. C. Backhouse. Closure algorithms and the star-height problem of regular languages. PhD thesis, University of London, 1975.]]

[3]

R. C. Backhouse. Fusion on languages. In 10th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2001, volume 2028 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 107--121. Springer, 2001.]]

Digital Library

[4]

R. C. Backhouse and R. K. Lutz. Factor graphs, failure functions and bi-trees. In A. Salomaa and M. Steinby, editors, Fourth Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume~52 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 61--75. Springer Verlag, July 1977.]]

Digital Library

[5]

M. Berndl, O. Lhoták, F. Qian, L. Hendren, and N. Umanee. Points-to analysis using BDDs. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 103--114, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[6]

R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 35(8):677--691, 1986.]]

Digital Library

[7]

J. A. Brzozowski. Derivatives of regular expressions. Journal of the ACM, 11(4):481--494, 1964.]]

Digital Library

[8]

M. D. Carroll and B. G. Ryder. Incremental data flow analysis via dominator and attribute updates. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 274--284, 1988.]]

Digital Library

[9]

J. H. Conway. Regular Algebra and Finite Machines. Chapman and Hall, 1971.]]

[10]

M. Das, S. Lerner, and M. Seigle. ESP: Path-sensitive program verification in polynomial time. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 57--68, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[11]

O. de Moor, D. Lacey, and E. Van Wyk. Universal regular path queries. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 16:15--35, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[12]

S. J. Drape, O. de Moor, and G. Sittampalam. Path logic programming. In ACM Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pages 133--144, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[13]

E. Duesterwald, R. Gupta, and M. L. Soffa. A practical framework for demand-driven interprocedural data flow analysis. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19(6):992--1030, 1997.]]

Digital Library

[14]

S. Z. Guyer and C. Lin. An annotation language for optimizing software libraries. In Second conference on Domain-Specific Languages, pages 39--52. USENIX, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[15]

S. Hallem, B. Chelf, Y. Xie, and D. Engler. A system and language for building system-specific, static analyses. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 69--82, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[16]

D. E. Knuth. Semantics of context-free languages. Mathematical Systems Theory, 2(2):127--145, 1968. Corrections in 5(2):95-96, 1971.]]

[17]

D. Lacey. Specifying Compiler Optimisations in Temporal Logic. DPhil thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, 2003.]]

[18]

D. Lacey and O. de Moor. Imperative program transformation by rewriting. In R. Wilhelm, editor, Compiler Construction, volume 2027 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 52--68. Springer Verlag, 2001.]]

[19]

D. Lacey, N. D. Jones, E. Van Wyk, and C. C. Frederiksen. Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 283--294, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[20]

S. Lerner, D. Grove, and C. Chambers. Composing dataflow analyses and transformations. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 270--282, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[21]

S. Lerner, T. Millstein, and C. Chambers. Automatically proving the correctness of compiler optimizations. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 220--231, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[22]

Y. A. Liu and S. D. Stoller. From Datalog rules to efficient programs with time and space guarantees. In ACM Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pages 172--183, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[23]

E. Meijer and J. Gough. A technical overview of the common language infrastructure. Available from URL: http://research.microsoft.com/~emeijer/Papers/CLR.pdf.]]

[24]

K. Olmos and E. Visser. Strategies for source-to-source constant propagation. Technical Report UU-CS-2002-042, Utrecht University, 2002. Available from URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/UU-CS-2002-042.html.]]

[25]

R. Paige. Viewing a program transformation system at work. In Manuel Hermenegildo and Jaan Penjam, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, pages 5--24. Springer Verlag, 1994.]]

Digital Library

[26]

L. Pollock and M. L. Soffa. An incremental version of iterative data flow analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(12):1537--1549, 1989.]]

Digital Library

[27]

T. W. Reps. Demand interprocedural program analysis using logic databases. In R. Ramakrishnan, editor, Applications of Logic Databases, pages 163--196. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.]]

[28]

T. W. Reps, S. Horwitz, and M. Sagiv. Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 49--61, 1995.]]

Digital Library

[29]

T. Rus and E. Van Wyk. Using model checking in a parallelizing compiler. Parallel processing letters, 8(4):459--471, 1998.]]

[30]

B. G. Ryder and M. C. Paull. Incremental data flow analysis algorithms. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 10(1):1--50, 1988.]]

Digital Library

[31]

O. V. Sokolsky and S. A. Smolka. Incremental model checking in the modal mu-calculus. In D. L. Dill, editor, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-aided verification, volume 818 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 351--363. Springer Verlag, 1994.]]

Digital Library

[32]

B. Steffen. Data flow analysis as model checking. In Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 526 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 346--364. Springer Verlag, 1991.]]

Digital Library

[33]

R. Vallée-Rai, L. Hendren, V. Sundaresan, P. Lam, E. Gagnon, and P. Co. Soot --- a Java optimization framework. In Proceedings of CASCON 1999, pages 125--135, 1999.]]

[34]

T. L. Veldhuizen and D. Gannon. Active libraries: Rethinking the roles of compilers and libraries. In Proceedings of the SIAM Workshop on Object Oriented Methods for Inter-operable Scientific and Engineering Computing. SIAM Press, 1998.]]

[35]

E. Visser. Meta-programming with concrete object syntax. In D. Batory, C. Consel, and W. Taha, editors, Generative Programming and Component Engineering, volume 2487 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 299--315. Springer-Verlag, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[36]

E. Visser, Z. Benaissa, and A. Tolmach. Building program optimizers with rewriting strategies. In ACM Conference on Functional Programming, pages 13--26, 1998.]]

Digital Library

[37]

M. N. Wegman and F. K. Zadeck. Constant propagation with conditional branches. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(2):181--210, 1991.]]

Digital Library

[38]

D. Whitfield and M. L. Soffa. An approach for exploring code-improving transformations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19(6):1053--1084, 1997.]]

Digital Library

Cited By

Shonle MGriswold WLerner S(2012)A framework for the checking and refactoring of crosscutting conceptsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2211616.221161821:3(1-47)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2211616.2211618
Tatlock ZKundu SLerner SGupta R(2011)Parameterized Program Equivalence CheckingHigh-Level Verification10.1007/978-1-4419-9359-5_8(123-145)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2011
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9359-5_8
Song MTilevich EArora SLeavens G(2009)Enhancing source-level programming tools with an awareness of transparent program transformationsProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications10.1145/1640089.1640112(301-320)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1640089.1640112
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Incremental execution of transformation specifications
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Compilers
      1. Incremental compilers
      2. Translator writing systems and compiler generators
    2. General programming languages
      1. Language features
        Patterns
      2. Language types
        Constraint and logic languages

Recommendations

Incremental execution of transformation specifications
POPL '04

We aim to specify program transformations in a declarative style, and then to generate executable program transformers from such specifications. Many transformations require non-trivial program analysis to check their applicability, and it is ...
Incremental parametric syntax for multi-language transformation
SPLASH Companion 2017: Proceedings Companion of the 2017 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity

We present a new approach for building source-to-source transformations that can run on multiple programming languages, based on a new way of representing programs called incremental parametric syntax. We implement this approach in our Cubix system, and ...
An unfold/fold transformation framework for definite logic programs

Given a logic program P, an unfold/fold program transformation system derives a sequence of programs P = P₀, P₁, …, P_n, such that P_i+1 is derived from P_i by application of either an unfolding or a folding step. Unfold/fold transformations have been ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

POPL '04: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages

January 2004

364 pages

ISBN:158113729X

DOI:10.1145/964001

General Chair:
Neil D. Jones
DIKU, University of Copenhagen
,
Program Chair:
Xavier Leroy
INRIA Rocquencourt

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 39, Issue 1
POPL '04
January 2004
352 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/982962
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2004 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2004

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

POPL04

Sponsor:

POPL04: The 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

January 14 - 16, 2004

Venice, Italy

Acceptance Rates

POPL '04 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 176 submissions, 16%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 824 of 4,130 submissions, 20%

Upcoming Conference

POPL '25

Sponsor:
sigplan

The 52nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

January 19 - 25, 2025

Denver , CO , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

24
Total Citations
View Citations
679
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)3
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Shonle MGriswold WLerner S(2012)A framework for the checking and refactoring of crosscutting conceptsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2211616.221161821:3(1-47)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2211616.2211618
Tatlock ZKundu SLerner SGupta R(2011)Parameterized Program Equivalence CheckingHigh-Level Verification10.1007/978-1-4419-9359-5_8(123-145)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2011
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9359-5_8
Song MTilevich EArora SLeavens G(2009)Enhancing source-level programming tools with an awareness of transparent program transformationsProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications10.1145/1640089.1640112(301-320)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1640089.1640112
Song MTilevich E(2009)Enhancing source-level programming tools with an awareness of transparent program transformationsACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/1639949.164011244:10(301-320)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1639949.1640112
Kundu STatlock ZLerner S(2009)Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalenceACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/1543135.154251344:6(327-337)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1543135.1542513
Kundu STatlock ZLerner SHind MDiwan A(2009)Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalenceProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/1542476.1542513(327-337)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1542476.1542513
Larsen K(2009)A MuDDy Experience---ML Bindings to a BDD LibraryProceedings of the IFIP TC 2 Working Conference on Domain-Specific Languages10.1007/978-3-642-03034-5_3(45-57)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-03034-5_3
Lhoták OHendren L(2008)Evaluating the benefits of context-sensitive points-to analysis using a BDD-based implementationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/1391984.139198718:1(1-53)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1391984.1391987
Ktari BLajeunesse-Robert FBolduc C(2008)Solving Linear Equations in *-continuous Action LatticesRelations and Kleene Algebra in Computer Science10.1007/978-3-540-78913-0_22(289-303)Online publication date: 2008
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78913-0_22
de Moor OLacey DVan Wyk E(2008)Universal Regular Path QueriesAutomatic Program Development10.1007/978-1-4020-6585-9_11(114-129)Online publication date: 2008
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6585-9_11
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents