The Correctness of Type Specialisation

Hughes, John

doi:10.1007/3-540-46425-5_14

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their addition is exactly as in Hughes's work [12,13] and is orthogonal to the problems discussed in the present paper.…”

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…They guarantee the safety of the translated and the compiled code. We have proved correct our extension of type specialization, which amounts to proving subject reduction [13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…3) and then proving a result like this: As in Hughes's paper [13], the proof relies on a number of substitution lemmas (see Section 4), which are all easy to prove.…”

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Equality on specialized types Hughes [13] has proved the correctness of type specialization by specifying two reduction relations, one for two-level terms, → tt , and one for specialized terms, → sp , (see Fig. 3) and then proving a result like this: As in Hughes's paper [13], the proof relies on a number of substitution lemmas (see Section 4), which are all easy to prove.…”

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…1) to the enriched language. Since there are no new reductions, it is sufficient to extend the proofs of the substitution lemmas [13] …”

Section: Compiling Policies Using Intersection Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Enforcing Safety Properties Using Type Specialization

Thiemann

2001

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Type specialization can serve as a powerful tool in enforcing safety properties on foreign code. Using the specification of a monitoring interpreter, polyvariant type specialization can produce compiled code that is guaranteed to obey a specified safety policy. It propagates a security state at compile-time and generates code for each different security state. The resulting code contains virtually no run-time operations on the security state, at the price of some code duplication. A novel extension of type specialization by intersection types limits the amount of code duplication considerably, thus making the approach practical.A few years back, mobile code was merely an exciting research subject. Meanwhile, the situation has changed dramatically and mobile code is about to invade our everyday lives. Many applications load parts of their code -or even thirdparty extension modules-from the network and run it on the local computer. Web browsers are the most prominent of these applications, but many others (e.g., mobile agents) are gaining importance quickly.The advent of these applications and related incidents has brought an increasing awareness of the problems involved in executing foreign and potentially hostile programs. Clearly, it should be guaranteed that foreign code does not compromise the hosting computer, by crashing the computer (data integrity), by accessing/modifying data that it is not supposed to access (memory integrity) or -more generally-by using resources that it is not supposed to use. A generally accepted way of giving this guarantee is to execute the code in a sand box. Conceptually, a sand box performs monitored execution. It tracks the execution of foreign code and stops it if it attempts an illegal sequence of actions. A property that can be enforced in this way is called a safety property.Such sand box environments have been conceived and implemented with widely different degrees of sophistication. The obvious approach to such a sand box is to perform monitoring by interpreting the code. However, while the approach is highly flexible it involves a large interpretation overhead. Another approach, taken by the JDK [14], is to equip strategic functions in a library with calls to a security manager. A user-provided instantiation of the security manager is then responsible to keep track of the actions and to prevent unwanted actions. The latter approach is less flexible, but more efficient. Java solves the problem of data and memory integrity statically by subjecting all programs to a bytecode verification process [18].

show abstract

“…Their addition is exactly as in Hughes's work [12,13] and is orthogonal to the problems discussed in the present paper.…”

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…They guarantee the safety of the translated and the compiled code. We have proved correct our extension of type specialization, which amounts to proving subject reduction [13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…3) and then proving a result like this: As in Hughes's paper [13], the proof relies on a number of substitution lemmas (see Section 4), which are all easy to prove.…”

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…1) to the enriched language. Since there are no new reductions, it is sufficient to extend the proofs of the substitution lemmas [13] …”

Section: Compiling Policies Using Intersection Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Enforcing Safety Properties Using Type Specialization

Thiemann

2001

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Tagging, Encoding, and Jones Optimality

Danvy

López

2003

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A partial evaluator is said to be Jones-optimal if the result of specializing a self-interpreter with respect to a source program is textually identical to the source program, modulo renaming. Jones optimality has already been obtained if the self-interpreter is untyped. If the selfinterpreter is typed, however, residual programs are cluttered with type tags. To obtain the original source program, these tags must be removed.A number of sophisticated solutions have already been proposed. We observe, however, that with a simple representation shift, ordinary partial evaluation is already Jones-optimal, modulo an encoding. The representation shift amounts to reading the type tags as constructors for higherorder abstract syntax. We substantiate our observation by considering a typed self-interpreter whose input syntax is higher-order. Specializing this interpreter with respect to a source program yields a residual program that is textually identical to the source program, modulo renaming.

show abstract

Tag Elimination and Jones-Optimality

Taha

Makholm

Hughes³

2001

Programs as Data Objects

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Tag elimination is a program transformation for removing unnecessary tagging and untagging operations from automatically generated programs. Tag elimination was recently proposed as having immediate applications in implementations of domain specific languages (where it can give a two-fold speedup), and may provide a solution to the long standing problem of Jones-optimal specialization in the typed setting. This paper explains in more detail the role of tag elimination in the implementation of domain-specific languages, presents a number of significant simplifications and a high-level, higher-order, typed self-applicable interpreter. We show how tag elimination achieves Jones-optimality.

show abstract

The Correctness of Type Specialisation

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Enforcing Safety Properties Using Type Specialization

Enforcing Safety Properties Using Type Specialization

Tagging, Encoding, and Jones Optimality

Tag Elimination and Jones-Optimality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About