Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weakest Precondition Synthesis for Compiler Optimizations

  • Conference paper
Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8318))

Abstract

Compiler optimizations play an increasingly important role in code generation. This is especially true with the advent of resourcelimited mobile devices. We rely on compiler optimizations to improve performance, reduce code size, and reduce power consumption of our programs.

Despite being a mature field, compiler optimizations are still designed and implemented by hand, and usually without providing any guarantee of correctness.

In addition to devising the code transformations, designers and implementers have to come up with an analysis that determines in which cases the optimization can be safely applied. In other words, the optimization designer has to specify a precondition that ensures that the optimization is semantics-preserving. However, devising preconditions for optimizations by hand is a non-trivial task. It is easy to specify a precondition that, although correct, is too restrictive, and therefore misses some optimization opportunities.

In this paper, we propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first algorithm for the automatic synthesis of preconditions for compiler optimizations. The synthesized preconditions are provably correct by construction, and they are guaranteed to be the weakest in the precondition language that we consider.

We implemented the proposed technique in a tool named PSyCO. We present examples of preconditions synthesized by PSyCO, as well as the results of running PSyCO on a set of optimizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aho, A.V., Lam, M.S., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bansal, S., Aiken, A.: Automatic generation of peephole superoptimizers. In: ASPLOS (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barthe, G., Crespo, J.M., Kunz, C.: Relational verification using product programs. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Benton, N.: Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations. In: POPL (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bozga, M., Iosif, R., Konečný, F.: Deciding conditional termination. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brain, M., Crick, T., De Vos, M., Fitch, J.: TOAST: Applying answer set programming to superoptimisation. In: Etalle, S., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) ICLP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4079, pp. 270–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Calcagno, C., Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P., Yang, H.: Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. In: POPL (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cook, B., Gulwani, S., Lev-Ami, T., Rybalchenko, A., Sagiv, M.: Proving conditional termination. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 328–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Fähndrich, M., Logozzo, F.: Automatic inference of necessary preconditions. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 128–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Godlin, B., Strichman, O.: Inference rules for proving the equivalence of recursive procedures. Acta Inf. 45(6), 403–439 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldberg, B., Zuck, L., Barrett, C.: Into the loops: Practical issues in translation validation for optimizing compilers. Electron. Notes Theor. Comp. Sci. 132 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gulwani, S., Jha, S., Tiwari, A., Venkatesan, R.: Synthesis of loop-free programs. In: PLDI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gulwani, S., Srivastava, S., Venkatesan, R.: Constraint-based invariant inference over predicate abstraction. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 120–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo, S.-Y., Palsberg, J.: The essence of compiling with traces. In: POPL (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hawblitzel, C., Kawaguchi, M., Lahiri, S.K., Rebêlo, H.: Towards modularly comparing programs using automated theorem provers. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 282–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Joshi, R., Nelson, G., Zhou, Y.: Denali: A practical algorithm for generating optimal code. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 28(6), 967–989 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Junker, U.: QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: AAAI (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kundu, S., Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalence. In: PLDI (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leino, K.R.M.: Efficient weakest preconditions. Inf. Process. Lett. 93(6), 281–288 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Lerner, S., Millstein, T., Chambers, C.: Automatically proving the correctness of compiler optimizations. In: PLDI (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lerner, S., Millstein, T., Rice, E., Chambers, C.: Automated soundness proofs for dataflow analyses and transformations via local rules. In: POPL (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leroy, X.: Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52(7), 107–115 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lopes, N.P., Monteiro, J.: Automatic equivalence checking of UF+IA programs. In: Bartocci, E., Ramakrishnan, C.R. (eds.) SPIN 2013. LNCS, vol. 7976, pp. 282–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Marques-Silva, J., Janota, M., Belov, A.: Minimal sets over monotone predicates in boolean formulae. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 592–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Moy, Y.: Sufficient preconditions for modular assertion checking. In: Logozzo, F., Peled, D.A., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) VMCAI 2008. LNCS, vol. 4905, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Muchnick, S.S.: Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Namjoshi, K.S., Zuck, L.D.: Witnessing program transformations. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 304–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Necula, G.C.: Translation validation for an optimizing compiler. In: PLDI (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pnueli, A., Siegel, M., Singerman, E.: Translation validation. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Scherpelz, E.R., Lerner, S., Chambers, C.: Automatic inference of optimizer flow functions from semantic meanings. In: PLDI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Seghir, M.N., Kroening, D.: Counterexample-guided precondition inference. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 451–471. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Stepp, M., Tate, R., Lerner, S.: Equality-based translation validator for LLVM. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 737–742. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Tate, R., Stepp, M., Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Equality saturation: a new approach to optimization. In: POPL (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tate, R., Stepp, M., Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Generating compiler optimizations from proofs. In: POPL (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tatlock, Z., Lerner, S.: Bringing extensibility to verified compilers. In: PLDI (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tristan, J.-B., Govereau, P., Morrisett, G.: Evaluating value-graph translation validation for LLVM. In: PLDI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yang, X., Chen, Y., Eide, E., Regehr, J.: Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. In: PLDI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zaks, A., Pnueli, A.: CoVaC: Compiler validation by program analysis of the cross-product. In: Cuellar, J., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhao, J., Nagarakatte, S., Martin, M.M., Zdancewic, S.: Formal verification of SSA-based optimizations for LLVM. In: PLDI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zuck, L., Pnueli, A., Goldberg, B., Barrett, C., Fang, Y., Hu, Y.: Translation and run-time validation of loop transformations. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 27 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INESC-ID, IST Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

    Nuno P. Lopes & José Monteiro

Authors
  1. Nuno P. Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. One Microsoft Way, Microsoft Research, 98052, Redmond, WA, USA

    Kenneth L. McMillan

  2. DI - Ecole Normale Supérieure, 45, rue d’Ulm, 75230, Paris Cedex 05, France

    Xavier Rival

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lopes, N.P., Monteiro, J. (2014). Weakest Precondition Synthesis for Compiler Optimizations. In: McMillan, K.L., Rival, X. (eds) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation. VMCAI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8318. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54012-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54013-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation