An Array-Oriented Language with Static Rank Polymorphism

  • Justin Slepak
  • Olin Shivers
  • Panagiotis Manolios
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8410)

Abstract

The array-computational model pioneered by Iverson’s languages APL and J offers a simple and expressive solution to the “von Neumann bottleneck.” It includes a form of rank, or dimensional, polymorphism, which renders much of a program’s control structure implicit by lifting base operators to higher-dimensional array structures. We present the first formal semantics for this model, along with the first static type system that captures the full power of the core language.

The formal dynamic semantics of our core language, Remora, illuminates several of the murkier corners of the model. This allows us to resolve some of the model’s ad hoc elements in more general, regular ways. Among these, we can generalise the model from SIMD to MIMD computations, by extending the semantics to permit functions to be lifted to higher-dimensional arrays in the same way as their arguments.

Our static semantics, a dependent type system of carefully restricted power, is capable of describing array computations whose dimensions cannot be determined statically. The type-checking problem is decidable and the type system is accompanied by the usual soundness theorems. Our type system’s principal contribution is that it serves to extract the implicit control structure that provides so much of the language’s expressive power, making this structure explicitly apparent at compile time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Backus, J.: Can programming be liberated from the von Neumann style?: a functional style and its algebra of programs. Commun. ACM 21(8), 613–641 (1978)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blelloch, G.: NESL: A nested data-parallel language (version 3.1). Tech. rep. (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blelloch, G., Chatterjee, S., Hardwick, J.C., Sipelstein, J., Zagha, M.: Implementation of a portable nested data-parallel language. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 21, 102–111 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, F.P.: The Design of Design: Essays from a Computer Scientist. Addison-Wesley (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakravarty, M.M.T., Leshchinskiy, R., Peyton Jones, S., Keller, G., Marlow, S.: Data parallel haskell: a status report. In: DAMP 2007: Workshop on Declarative Aspects of Multicore Programming, ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felleisen, M., Findler, R.B., Flatt, M.: Semantics Engineering with PLT Redex, 1st edn. MIT Press (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iverson, K.E.: A programming language. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1962)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jay, C.B.: The fish language definition. Tech. rep. (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jay, C.B., Cockett, J.: Shapely types and shape polymorphism. In: Sannella, D. (ed.) ESOP 1994. LNCS, vol. 788, pp. 302–316. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jsoftware, Inc.: Jsoftware: High-performance development platform, http://www.jsoftware.com/
  11. 11.
    Keller, G., Chakravarty, M.M., Leshchinskiy, R., Peyton Jones, S., Lippmeier, B.: Regular, shape-polymorphic, parallel arrays in haskell. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2010, pp. 261–272. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1(2), 245–257 (1979)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peyton Jones, S., Leshchinskiy, R., Keller, G., Chakravarty, M.M.: Harnessing the multicores: Nested data parallelism in haskell. In: FSTTCS, vol. 2, pp. 383–414 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ragan-Kelley, J., Adams, A., Paris, S., Levoy, M., Amarasinghe, S., Durand, F.: Decoupling algorithms from schedules for easy optimization of image processing pipelines. ACM Trans. Graph. 31(4), 32:1–32:12 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholz, S.B.: Single assignment c: efficient support for high-level array operations in a functional setting. J. Funct. Program. 13(6), 1005–1059 (2003)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thatte, S.: A type system for implicit scaling. Sci. Comput. Program. 17(1-3), 217–245 (1991), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-64239190040-5 CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trojahner, K., Grelck, C.: Dependently typed array programs don’t go wrong. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 78(7), 643–664 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xi, H.: Dependent types in practical programming. Ph.D. thesis, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1998) aAI9918624Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xi, H., Pfenning, F.: Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1998 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 1998, pp. 249–257. ACM, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zima, H., Chapman, B.: Supercompilers for Parallel and Vector Computers. ACM Press (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin Slepak
    • 1
  • Olin Shivers
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Manolios
    • 1
  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations