Improving Offline Narrowing-Driven Partial Evaluation Using Size-Change Graphs

  • Gustavo Arroyo
  • J. Guadalupe Ramos
  • Josep Silva
  • Germán Vidal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4407)

Abstract

An offline approach to narrowing-driven partial evaluation (a partial evaluation scheme for first-order functional and functional logic programs) has recently been introduced. In this approach, program annotations (i.e., the expressions that should be generalised at partial evaluation time to ensure termination) are based on a simple syntactic characterisation of quasi-terminating programs. This work extends the previous offline scheme by introducing a new annotation strategy which is based on a combination of size-change graphs and binding-time analysis. Preliminary experiments point out that the number of program annotations is significantly reduced compared to the previous approach, which means that faster residual programs are often produced.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, E., Vidal, G.: The Narrowing-Driven Approach to Functional Logic Program Specialization. New Generation Computing 20(1), 3–26 (2002)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Vidal, G.: Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs. ACM TOPLAS 20(4), 768–844 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoy, S.: Definitional trees. In: Kirchner, H., Levi, G. (eds.) Algebraic and Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 632, pp. 143–157. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoy, S., Echahed, R., Hanus, M.: A Needed Narrowing Strategy. Journal of the ACM 47(4), 776–822 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arroyo, G., Ramos, J.G., Silva, J., Vidal, G.: Improving Offline Narrowing-Driven Partial Evaluation Using Size-Change Graphs. Technical report, Technical University of Valencia (2006), Available from the following URL, http://www.dsic.upv.es/users/elp/german/papers.html
  6. 6.
    Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bossi, A., Cocco, N., Fabris, M.: Proving Termination of Logic Programs by Exploiting Term Properties. In: Abramsky, S. (ed.) TAPSOFT 1991, CCPSD 1991, and ADC-Talks 1991. LNCS, vol. 494, pp. 153–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chin, W.N., Khoo, S.C.: Better Consumers for Program Specializations. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 1996(4) (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Codish, M., Taboch, C.: A semantic basis for the termination analysis of logic programs. J. Log. Program. 41(1), 103–123 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Schreye, D., Glück, R., Jørgensen, J., Leuschel, M., Martens, B., Sørensen, M.H.: Conjunctive Partial Deduction: Foundations, Control, Algorihtms, and Experiments. Journal of Logic Programming 41(2-3), 231–277 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decorte, S., De Schreye, D., Leuschel, M., Martens, B., Sagonas, K.F.: Termination Analysis for Tabled Logic Programming. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) LOPSTR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1463, pp. 111–127. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dershowitz, N.: Termination of Rewriting. Journal of Symbolic Computation 3(1-2), 69–115 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallagher, J.: Tutorial on Specialisation of Logic Programs. In: Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’93), pp. 88–98. ACM, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genaim, S., Codish, M., Gallagher, J.P., Lagoon, V.: Combining Norms to Prove Termination. In: Cortesi, A. (ed.) VMCAI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2294, pp. 126–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giovannetti, E., Levi, G., Moiso, C., Palamidessi, C.: Kernel Leaf: A Logic plus Functional Language. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 42, 363–377 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glenstrup, A.J., Jones, N.D.: Termination analysis and specialization-point insertion in offline partial evaluation. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 27(6), 1147–1215 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanus, M.: The Integration of Functions into Logic Programming: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Logic Programming 19-20, 583–628 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanus, M.: Curry: An Integrated Functional Logic Language (2003), Available at, http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~mh/curry
  19. 19.
    Hanus, M. (ed.), Antoy, S., Engelke, M., Höppner, K., Koj, J., Niederau, P., Sadre, R., Steiner, F.: PAKCS 1.6.0: The Portland Aachen Kiel Curry System—User Manual. Technical report, University of Kiel, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holst, C.K.: Finiteness Analysis. In: Hughes, J. (ed.) Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture. LNCS, vol. 523, pp. 473–495. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huet, G., Lévy, J.J.: Computations in orthogonal rewriting systems, Part I + II. In: Lassez, J.L., Plotkin, G.D. (eds.) Computational Logic – Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson, pp. 395–443 (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, N.D., Gomard, C.K., Sestoft, P.: Partial Evaluation and Automatic Program Generation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lafave, L., Gallagher, J.P.: Constraint-based Partial Evaluation of Rewriting-based Functional Logic Programs. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) LOPSTR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1463, pp. 168–188. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, C.S., Jones, N.D., Ben-Amram, A.M.: The Size-Change Principle for Program Termination. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’01), vol. 28, pp. 81–92. ACM press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindenstrauss, N., Sagiv, Y.: Automatic termination analysis of logic programs. In: ICLP, pp. 63–77 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Loogen, R., López-Fraguas, F., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M.: A Demand Driven Computation Strategy for Lazy Narrowing. In: Penjam, J., Bruynooghe, M. (eds.) PLILP 1993. LNCS, vol. 714, pp. 184–200. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moreno-Navarro, J.J., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M.: Logic Programming with Functions and Predicates: The language Babel. J. Logic Programming 12(3), 191–224 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peyton-Jones, S. (ed.): Haskell 98 Language and Libraries—The Revised Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramos, J.G., Silva, J., Vidal, G.: Fast Narrowing-Driven Partial Evaluation for Inductively Sequential Systems. ACM SIGPLAN Notices (Proc. of ICFP’05) 40(9), 228–239 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slagle, J.R.: Automated Theorem-Proving for Theories with Simplifiers, Commutativity and Associativity. Journal of the ACM 21(4), 622–642 (1974)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thiemann, R., Giesl, J.: The size-change principle and dependency pairs for termination of term rewriting. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 16(4), 229–270 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Verbaeten, S., Sagonas, K., De Schreye, D.: Termination Proofs for Logic Programs with Tabling. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(1), 57–92 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Arroyo
    • 1
  • J. Guadalupe Ramos
    • 1
  • Josep Silva
    • 1
  • Germán Vidal
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 ValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations