Implementing Multi-stage Languages Using ASTs, Gensym, and Reflection

Calcagno, Cristiano; Taha, Walid; Huang, Liwen; Leroy, Xavier

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39815-8_4

Cited by 82 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To increase productivity, structured multistage languages enforce syntactic correctness of the generated code: e.g., C++ expression templates [25], 'C [19] and Jumbo [12]. To further increase productivity and ease debugging, a few multistage languages guarantee that the generated code will not produce any compilation error (syntax, definition and initialization errors, type checking): e.g., MetaML and its successor MetaOCaml [2,24]. The added safety is very valuable to increase the productivity of program generator designers, but the associated constraints may also complicate the meta-programming of specific optimizations [4].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Language for the Compact Representation of Multiple Program Versions

Donadio

Brodman

Roeder

et al. 2006

Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. As processor complexity increases compilers tend to deliver suboptimal performance. Library generators such as ATLAS, FFTW and SPIRAL overcome this issue by empirically searching in the space of possible program versions for the one that performs the best. Empirical search can also be applied by programmers, but because they lack a tool to automate the process, programmers need to manually re-write the application in terms of several parameters whose best value will be determined by the empirical search in the target machine. In this paper, we present the design of an annotation language, meant to be used either as an intermediate representation within library generators or directly by the programmer. This language that we call X represents parameterized programs in a compact and natural way. It provides an powerful optimization framework for high performance computing.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Language for the Compact Representation of Multiple Program Versions

Donadio

Brodman

Roeder

et al. 2006

Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lisp-style macros, Scheme hygienic macros, the camlp4 preprocessor [16], C++ template metaprogramming, and Template Haskell [17] solve some of the above problems. Of the widely available maintainable languages, only MetaOCaml [18,19] solves all of the above problems, including the well-typing of both the generator and the generated code [20,21]. But more difficult problems remain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-stage Programming with Functors and Monads: Eliminating Abstraction Overhead from Generic Code

Carette

Kiselyov²

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use multi-stage programming, monads and Ocaml's advanced module system to demonstrate how to eliminate all abstraction overhead from generic programs while avoiding any inspection of the resulting code. We demonstrate this clearly with Gaussian Elimination as a representative family of symbolic and numeric algorithms. We parameterize our code to a great extent -over domain, input and permutation matrix representations, determinant and rank tracking, pivoting policies, result types, etc. -at no run-time cost. Because the resulting code is generated just right and not changed afterward, MetaOCaml guarantees that the generated code is well-typed. We further demonstrate that various abstraction parameters (aspects) can be made orthogonal and compositional, even in the presence of name-generation for temporaries, and "interleaving" of aspects. We also show how to encode some domain-specific knowledge so that "clearly wrong" compositions can be rejected at or before generation time, rather than during the compilation or running of the generated code.

show abstract

“…Introducing explicit staging constructs into programming languages is the goal of research projects including 'C [9], Popcorn [25], MetaML [30,20], MetaOCaml [4,19], and Template Haskell [23]. Staging is an essential ingredient of macros [10], partial evaluation [15], program generation [16], and run-time code generation [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ML-Like Inference for Classifiers

Calcagno

Moggi

Taha

2004

Programming Languages and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Environment classifiers were proposed as a new approach to typing multi-stage languages. Safety was established in the simply-typed and let-polymorphic settings. While the motivation for classifiers was the feasibility of inference, this was in fact not established. This paper starts with the observation that inference for the full classifier-based system fails. We then identify a subset of the original system for which inference is possible. This subset, which uses implicit classifiers, retains significant expressivity (e.g. it can embed the calculi of Davies and Pfenning) and eliminates the need for classifier names in terms. Implicit classifiers were implemented in MetaOCaml, and no changes were needed to make an existing test suite acceptable by the new type checker.

show abstract

Implementing Multi-stage Languages Using ASTs, Gensym, and Reflection

Cited by 82 publications

References 26 publications

A Language for the Compact Representation of Multiple Program Versions

A Language for the Compact Representation of Multiple Program Versions

Multi-stage Programming with Functors and Monads: Eliminating Abstraction Overhead from Generic Code

ML-Like Inference for Classifiers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About