Advertisement

Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation

, Volume 14, Issue 2–3, pp 261–300 | Cite as

Calculating Sized Types

  • Wei-Ngan Chin
  • Siau-Cheng Khoo
Article

Abstract

Many program optimizations and analyses, such as array-bounds checking, termination analysis, etc., depend on knowing the size of a function's input and output. However, size information can be difficult to compute. Firstly, accurate size computation requires detecting a size relation between different inputs of a function. Secondly, different optimizations and analyses may require slightly different size information, and thus slightly different computation. Literature in size computation has mainly concentrated on size checking, instead of size inference. In this paper, we provide a generic framework on which different size variants can be expressed and computed. We also describe an effective algorithm for inferring, instead of checking, size information. Size information are expressed in terms of Presburger formulae, and our algorithm utilizes the Omega Calculator to compute as exact a size information as possible, within the linear arithmetic capability.

type inference Presburger formulae program analysis and optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benoy, F. and King, A. Inferring argument size relationships with CLP(R). In Logic Programming Synthesis and Transformation. Springer-Verlag, August 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bossi, A., Cocco, N., and Fabris, M. Typed norms. In European Symposium on Programming '92. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 582, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brodsky, A. and Sagiv, Y. Inference of inequality constraints in logic programs. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM Press, 1991, pp. 227–240.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chin, W.N. and Hagiya, M. A bounds inference method for vector-based memoisation. In 2nd ACM Intl. Conference on Functional Programming, Amsterdam, Holland, June 1997. ACM Press, pp. 176–187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chin, W.N., Khoo, S.C., and Xu, D.N. Deriving pre-conditions for array bound check elimination. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Programs as Data Objects, LNCS 2053, O. Danvy and A. Filinski (Eds.). 2001, pp. 2–24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, D.C. Programs for mechanical program verification. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Machine Intelligence Workshop, Edinburgh, Machine Intelligence, B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.). Vol. 6, Edinburgh University Press, 1971, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P. and Halbwachs, N. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1978, ACM Press, pp. 84–96.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Schreye, D. and Decorte, S. Termination of logic programs: the never-ending story. Journal of Logic Programming, 19/20 (1994) 199–260.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glenstrup, A.J. and Jones, N.D. BTA algorithms to ensure termination of off-line partial evaluation. In “Perspective of System Informatics”. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1110, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halbwachs, N. About synchronous programming and abstract interpretation. Science of Computer Programming, Special Issue on SAS'94, 31(1) (1998).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halbwachs, N., Proy, Y.E., and Roumanoff, P. Verification of real-time systems using linear relation analysis. Formal Methods in System Design, 11(2) (1997) 157–185.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henglein, F. Type inference with polymorphic recursion. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15(2) (1993) 253–289.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henkin, L., Monk, J.D., and Tarski, A. Cylindric Algebras: Part I. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P. Grundlagen der Mathematik I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holst, C.K. Finiteness analysis. In 5th ACM Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 1991. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 523, Springer-Verlag, pp. 473–495.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughes, J., Pareto, L., and Sabry, A. Proving the correctness of reactive systems using sized types. In 23rd ACM Principles of Programming Languages Conference, January 1996. ACM Press, pp. 410–423.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeannet, B., Halbwachs, N., and Raymond, P. Dynamic partitioning in analyses of numerical properties. In International Symposium on Static Analysis, SAS'99. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1694, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelly, P., Maslov, V., Pugh, W., Rosser, E., Shpeisman, T., and Wonnacott, D. The Omega library version 1.1.0 interface guide. University of Maryland, College Park, November 1996. http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/omegaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly, P., Pugh, W., Rosser, E., and Shpeisman, T. Transitive closure of infinite graphs and its applications. Technical Report, UMIACS-TR–95–48, University of Maryland, College Park, April 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    King, A., Shen, K., and Benoy, F. Lower-bound time-complexity analysis of logic programs. In International Symposium on Logic Programming, November 1997, Jan Maluszynski (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 261–276.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishimura, S. Parametric polymorphic type inference in constraint form. In Second JSSST Workshop on Programming and Programming Languages, Japan, March 2000. pp. 38–49.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Odersky, M., Sulzmann, M., and Wehr, M. Type inference with constrained types. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 5(1) (1999) 35–55.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plumer, L. Termination proofs for logic programs. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 446. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pugh, W. The Omega test: a fast practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis. Communications of ACM, 8 (1992) 102–114.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schrijver, A. Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sohn, K. and Van Gelder, A. Termination detection in logic programs using argument sizes (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1991, pp. 216–226.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Speirs, C., Somogyi, Z., and Sondergaard, H. Termination analysis of Mercury. In Fourth International Symposium on Static Analysis, Paris, France, 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1302, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ullman, J.D. and Van Gelder, A. Efficient tests for top-down termination of logical rules. Journal of ACM, 35(2) (1998) 345–373.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xi, H. and Pfenning, F. Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types. In ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1998. ACM Press, pp. 249–257.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xi, H. and Pfenning, F. Dependent types in practical programming. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 1999. ACM Press, pp. 214–227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei-Ngan Chin
    • 1
  • Siau-Cheng Khoo
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingNational University ofSingapore

Personalised recommendations