A computational formalization for partial evaluation

Self Cite

We show that a non-duplicating CPS transformation has no effect on controlflow analysis and that it has a positive effect on binding-time analysis: a monovariant control-flow analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart, and a monovariant binding-time analysis yields more precise results on a CPS program than on its direct-style counterpart. Our proof technique amounts to constructing the continuation-passing style (CPS) counterpart of flow information and of binding times.Our results confirm a folklore theorem about binding-time analysis, namely that CPS has a positive effect on binding times. What may be more surprising is that this benefit holds even if contexts or continuations are not duplicated.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. * Extended version of an article

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…We consider a constraint-based binding-time analysis (BTA) [10,25,26,28]. The analysis determines binding times of program points and program variables.…”

Section: Binding-time Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Damian¹,

Danvy²

2000

Self Cite

“…Hatcliff and Danvy [30] have formalized a (monovariant) partial evaluator for Moggi's computational metalanguage. The partial evaluator is proven sound with repect to an underlying operational semantics.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Aspects of Polyvariant Specialization

Rohde¹

2005

“…Type Preservation: During the evaluation, the generated bindings B hold context information of the term E. The type preservation, therefore, uses a notion of typable binder-term-in-context, which extends the notion of typable term-in-context. A similar notion to binder-term-in-context has been used by Hatcliff and Danvy to formalize continuation-based partial evaluation [20].…”

Section: Syntax Semantics and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasoning About Code-Generation in Two-Level Languages

Yang¹

2000

We show that two-level languages are not only a good tool for describing code-generation algorithms, but a good tool for reasoning about them as well. Indeed, some general properties of two-level languages capture common proof obligations of code-generation algorithms in the form of two-level programs.• To prove that the generated code behaves as desired, we use an erasure property, which equationally relates the generated code to an erasure of the original two-level program in the object language, thereby reducing the two-level proof obligation to a simpler one-level obligation.• To prove that the generated code satisfies certain syntactic constraints, e.g., that it is in some normal form, we use a type-preservation property for a refined type system that enforces these constraints.In addition, to justify concrete implementations of code-generation algorithms in one-level languages, we use a native embedding of a two-level language into a one-level language.We present two-level languages with these properties both for a call-byname object language and for a call-by-value object language with computational effects. Indeed, it is these properties that guide our language design in the call-by-value case. We consider two classes of non-trivial applications: one-pass transformations into continuation-passing style and type-directed partial evaluation for call-by-name and for call-by-value.