scholarly journals Fully Automatic Binding-Time Analysis for Prolog

2005 ◽  
pp. 53-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen-John Craig ◽  
John P. Gallagher ◽  
Michael Leuschel ◽  
Kim S. Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Time Analysis ◽  
Binding Time ◽  
Fully Automatic ◽  
Binding Time Analysis

scholarly journals Binding Time Analysis: Abstract Interpretation vs. Type Inference

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (393) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Palsberg ◽  
Michael I. Schwartzbach
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Interpretation ◽  
Lambda Calculus ◽  
Type Inference ◽  
Time Analysis ◽  
Binding Time ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Binding Time Analysis

Binding time analysis is important in partial evaluators. Its task is to determine which parts of a program can be specialized if some of the expected input is known. Two approaches to do this are abstract interpretation and type inference. We compare two specific such analyses to see which one determines most program parts to be eliminable. The first is the abstract interpretation approach of Bondorf, and the second is the type inference approach o£ Gomard. Both apply to the untyped lambda calculus. We prove that Bondorf's analysis is better than Gomard's.

scholarly journals Syntactic Accidents in Program Analysis: On the Impact of the CPS Transformation

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (54) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Damian ◽  
Olivier Danvy
Keyword(s):  
Program Analysis ◽  
Partial Evaluation ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Control Flow ◽  
Time Analysis ◽  
Binding Time ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Binding Time Analysis ◽  
Control Flow Analysis

We show that a non-duplicating transformation into continuation-passing style (CPS) has no effect on control-flow analysis, a positive effect on binding-time analysis for traditional partial evaluation, and no effect on binding-time analysis for continuation-based partial evaluation: a monovariant control-flow analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart, a monovariant binding-time analysis yields less precise results on a direct-style program than on its CPS counterpart, and an enhanced monovariant binding-time analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart. Our proof technique amounts to constructing the CPS counterpart of flow information and of binding times.<br /> <br />Our results formalize and confirm a folklore theorem about traditional binding-time analysis, namely that CPS has a positive effect on binding times. What may be more surprising is that the benefit does not arise from a standard refinement of program analysis, as, for instance, duplicating continuations.<br /> <br />The present study is symptomatic of an unsettling property of program analyses: their quality is unpredictably vulnerable to syntactic accidents in source programs, i.e., to the way these programs are written. More reliable program analyses require a better understanding of the effect of syntactic change.

scholarly journals Efficient analyses for realistic off-line partial evaluation

1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Bondorf ◽  
Jesper Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
Linear Time ◽  
Partial Evaluation ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Time Analysis ◽  
Specific Order ◽  
Binding Time ◽  
And Function ◽  
Constraint Sets ◽  
Binding Time Analysis

AbstractBased on Henglein's efficient binding-time analysis for the lambda calculus (with constants and ‘fix’) (Henglein, 1991), we develop three efficient analyses for use in the preprocessing phase of Similix, a self-applicable partial evaluator for a higher-order subset of Scheme. The analyses developed in this paper are almost-linear in the size of the analysed program. (1) A flow analysis determines possible value flow between lambda-abstractions and function applications and between constructor applications and selector/predicate applications. The flow analysis is not particularly biased towards partial evaluation; the analysis corresponds to the closure analysis of Bondorf (1991b). (2) A (monovariant) binding-time analysis distinguishes static from dynamic values; the analysis treats both higher-order functions and partially static data structures. (3) A new is-used analysis, not present in Bondorf (1991b), finds a non-minimal binding-time annotation which is ‘safe’ in a certain way: a first-order value may only become static if its result is ‘needed’ during specialization; this ‘poor man's generalization’ (Holst, 1988) increases termination of specialization. The three analyses are performed sequentially in the above mentioned order since each depends on results from the previous analyses. The input to all three analyses are constraint sets generated from the program being analysed. The constraints are solved efficiently by a normalizing union/find-based algorithm in almost-linear time. Whenever possible, the constraint sets are partitioned into subsets which are solved in a specific order; this simplifies constraint normalization. The framework elegantly allows expressing both forwards and backwards components of analyses. In particular, the new is-used analysis is of backwards nature. The three constraint normalization algorithms are proved correct (soundness, completeness, termination, existence of a best solution). The analyses have been implemented and integrated in the Similix system. The new analyses are indeed much more efficient than those of Bondorf (1991b); the almost-linear complexity of the new analyses is confirmed by the implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document