Classes of equational programs that compile into efficient machine code

Strandh, Robert

doi:10.1007/3-540-51081-8_125

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Durand (1994) proved that the index tree introduced by Strandh (1988) is an equivalent definition of the matching DAG. We now recall the definition of an index tree.…”

Section: Index Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Strandh, 1989) In a forward-branching index tree, two index points (M, u) and (M, v) where u = v cannot exist.…”

Section: Definition 411 An Index Tree Is Said To Be Forward-branchimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strandh proved that in FB, outermost evaluation can be preserved while still doing innermost stabilization (computing strong head-normal forms), leading to an efficient strategy for sequences of reductions (Strandh, 1988). Furthermore, Durand (1994) has proved that the forward-branching property can be decided in quadratic time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The class of forward-branching systems (FB ) introduced by Strandh (1988) is a subclass of SS. Strandh proved that in FB, outermost evaluation can be preserved while still doing innermost stabilization (computing strong head-normal forms), leading to an efficient strategy for sequences of reductions (Strandh, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficient Simulation of Forward-Branching Systems with Constructor Systems

Salinier

Strandh

1996

Journal of Symbolic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strongly sequential constructor systems admit a very efficient algorithm to compute normal forms. Thatte found a transformation that allows us to simulate any orthogonal system with a constructor system. Unfortunately, this transformation does not generally preserve strong sequentiality. On the other hand, the class of forward-branching systems contains the class of strongly sequential constructor systems. Moreover, it admits a reduction algorithm similar to the reduction algorithm of the strongly sequential constructor class, but less efficient on the entire class of forward-branching systems.In this article, we present a new transformation which transforms any forward-branching system into a strongly sequential constructor system. The size of the system increases only modestly over that of the original one in many practical situations. We give an algorithm for this transformation and we prove its correctness and completeness. The new system is then proved to be equivalent to the input system, with respect to the behavior and the semantics. We then give a new transformation algorithm which increases the size of the system only linearly.

show abstract

“…Durand (1994) proved that the index tree introduced by Strandh (1988) is an equivalent definition of the matching DAG. We now recall the definition of an index tree.…”

Section: Index Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Strandh, 1989) In a forward-branching index tree, two index points (M, u) and (M, v) where u = v cannot exist.…”

Section: Definition 411 An Index Tree Is Said To Be Forward-branchimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficient Simulation of Forward-Branching Systems with Constructor Systems

Salinier

Strandh

1996

Journal of Symbolic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to reduce this kind of overhead, in practice lazy evaluation is often adapted to do a lot of eager evaluation. Strandh 54,55 showed for the restricted class of forward branching equational programs that lazy evaluation can be performed e ciently on eager hardware.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lazy rewriting on eager machinery

Fokkink

Kamperman²,

Walters³

2000

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Efficient automata-driven pattern-matching for equational programs

Nedjah

Walter

Eldridge

1999

Softw: Pract. Exper.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a practical technique to compile left-to-right pattern-matching of prioritised overlapping function definitions in equational languages to a matching automaton from which efficient code can be derived. First, a matching table is constructed using a compilation method similar to the technique that YACC employs to generate parsing tables. The matching table obtained allows for the pattern-matching process to be performed without any backtracking. Then, the known information about right sides of the equations is inserted in the matching table in order to speed-up the pattern-matching process. Most of the discussion assumes that the processed pattern set is left-linear, the non-linear case being handled by an additional pass following the matching stage.Usually, the pattern set is pre-processed producing an intermediate representation allowing for the matching process to be performed efficiently. Different kinds of such representations have been studied: conditional constructs, like those in procedural languages, have been exploited for this purpose. Examples include the if-then-else construct [5] and the caseexpression [6,7]. Another kind of representation consists of a matching tree (also called the index tree) [3,8]. Similarly, pattern-matching definitions have been compiled into a finite matching automaton in References [1,9,10,11,12].Pattern-matching automata have been studied for over a decade. Gräf [9], Maranget [13] and Christian [14] describe matching automata for unambiguous patterns based on left-toright traversal. Gräf [9] adds instances of patterns using a closure operation, so symbol re-examination could be avoided. Maranget [13] describes two techniques to compile lazy pattern-matching. The first technique generates a deterministic matching automaton that is equivalent to that obtained by Gräf [9]. The second technique, however, generates automata with failures that allow non-deterministic pattern-matching (i.e. with symbol re-examination). These automata possess a static exception construct that enables some code sharing. In functional programming, Augustsson [6] and Wadler [7] describe patternmatching techniques that are also based on left-to-right traversal, but allow prioritised overlapping patterns. They compile patterns into CASE constructs using four compilation rules: the empty rule, the constructor rule, the variable rule and the mixture rule. Although the latter methods are practical and economical in terms of space usage, they may re-examine symbols in the input term. In the worst case, these methods can degenerate to the naive method of checking the input term against each pattern individually. In contrast, Christian's [14] and Gräf's [9] methods, together with Maranget's [13] first technique, avoid symbol reexamination at the cost of increasing the space requirements, while Maranget's [13] second technique guarantee that the size the resulting automaton is linear in the size of the patterns. However, one has to bear in mind that the functional approach followed by Wadler [7] and...

show abstract

Classes of equational programs that compile into efficient machine code

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Efficient Simulation of Forward-Branching Systems with Constructor Systems

Efficient Simulation of Forward-Branching Systems with Constructor Systems

Lazy rewriting on eager machinery

Efficient automata-driven pattern-matching for equational programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About