Compilation à la Carte

Day, Laurence E.; Hutton, Graham

doi:10.1145/2620678.2620680

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The depth of the generated structure is linearly limited by dividing the n by expected branching factor of the recursive data structure. However this does not work very well for mutually recursive data structures occuring in compilers [3], which may have 30 constructors with highly variable 2 branching factor just like GHC's HSExpr data types. Now we have a choice of manual generation of these data structures, which certainly introduces bias in testing, or abandoning property testing for real-life-sized projects.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This generic representation can then be matched by generic instances. Example of Arbitrary instance from [5] serves as a basic example 3 1. First we convert the type to its generic representation: b)) Excellent piece of work, but non-terminating for recursive types with average branching factor greater than 1 (and non-lazy tests, like checking Eq reflexivity.…”

Section: Example Of Genericsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Less Arbitrary waiting time

Gajda

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Property testing is the cheapest and most precise way of building up a test suite for your program. Especially if the datatypes enjoy nice mathematical laws. But it is also the easiest way to make it run for an unreasonably long time. We prove connection between deeply recursive data structures, and epidemic growth rate, and show how to fix the problem, and make Arbitrary instances run in linear time with respect to assumed test size.

show abstract

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example Of Genericsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less Arbitrary waiting time

Gajda

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above compiler is essentially the same as that presented in (Day & Hutton, 2014), except that it has now been calculated directly from a specification of its correctness.…”

Section: Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with a number of earlier examples, the top-level compilation function comp is defined simply by applying comp to a nullary code constructor HALT that returns the current configuration. The above compiler is essentially the same as that presented in Day & Hutton (2014), except that it has now been calculated directly from a specification of its correctness.…”

Section: Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculating correct compilers

Bahr¹,

Hutton²

2015

J. Funct. Prog.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we present a new approach to the problem of calculating compilers. In particular, we develop a simple but general technique that allows us to derive correct compilers from highlevel semantics by systematic calculation, with all details of the implementation of the compilers falling naturally out of the calculation process. Our approach is based upon the use of standard equational reasoning techniques, and has been applied to calculate compilers for a wide range of language features and their combination, including arithmetic expressions, exceptions, state, various forms of lambda calculi, bounded and unbounded loops, non-determinism, and interrupts. All the calculations in the article have been formalised using the Coq proof assistant, which serves as a convenient interactive tool for developing and verifying the calculations.

show abstract

Combining deep and shallow embedding of domain-specific languages

Svenningsson

Axelsson

2015

Computer Languages, Systems & Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compilation à la Carte

Cited by 4 publications

References 33 publications

Less Arbitrary waiting time

Less Arbitrary waiting time

Calculating correct compilers

Combining deep and shallow embedding of domain-specific languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About