Link-time Optimization of Multi-Language Programs

  • Saumya Debray
Part of the Artificial Intelligence book series (AI)


Different programming languages have different strengths and weaknesses, and typically are suited for different application domains. Because of this, for many applications, using a single programming language to implement all aspects of the program may not be the best or most effective way to build the application. However, current language implementation technology does not make it easy to construct good multi-language programs: in particular, there is usually a nontrivial performance overhead associated with the use of multiple languages. This article discusses the use of link-time optimizations on machine-executable files to reduce such overheads.


Basic Block Scheme Program Control Flow Graph Executable Code Instruction Cache 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. V. Aho, R. Sethi and J. D. Ullman, Compilers - Principles, Techniques and Tools, Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. M. Ashley, “The Effectiveness of Flow Analysis for Inlining”, Proc. 1997 SI GPL AN International Conference on Functional Programming, June 1997, pp. 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Blume and A. W. Appel, “Lambda-splitting: A Higher-Order Approach to Cross-Module Optimizations”, Proc. 1997 SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, June 1997, pp. 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Calder and D. Grunwald, “Reducing Indirect Function Call Overhead in C++ Programs”, Proc. 21st ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Jan. 1994, pp. 397–408. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Calder and D. Grunwald, “Reducing Branch Costs via Branch Alignment”, 6th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, October 1994, pp. 242–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Codognet and D. Diaz, “wamcc: Compiling Prolog to C”, Proc. Twelfth International Coference on Logic Programming, June 1995, pp.317–332, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. D. Cooper, K. Kennedy, and L. Torczon, “The Impact of Interprocedural Analysis and Optimization on the Design of a Software Development Environment”, Technical Report COMP TR84–6, Dept. of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Henglein, “Global Tagging Optimization by Type Inference”, Proc. 1992 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, pp. 205–215. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Hermenegildo, personal communication, Nov. 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Jagannathan and A. Wright, “Effective Flow Analysis for Avoiding RunTime Checks”, Proc. 1995 Static Analysis Symposium (SAS ’95), Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Jagannathan and A. Wright, “Flow-directed Inlining”, Proc. SIGPLAN ’96 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, May 1996, pp. 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Pettis and R. C. Hansen, “Profile-Guided Code Positioning”, Proc. SIGPLAN ’90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1990, pp. 16–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    X. Leroy, “The Effectiveness of Type-Based Unboxing”, Workshop on Types in Compilation ’97, Amsterdam, 1997. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Santhanam and D. Odnert, “Register Allocation across Procedure and Module Boundaries”, Proc. SIGPLAN ’90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1990, pp. 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Serrano and P. Weis, “Bigloo: a portable and optimizing compiler for strict functional languages” Proc. Static Analysis Symposium(SAS ’95) , 1995, pp. 366–381. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Srivastava, “Unreachable Procedures in Object-Oriented Programming”, ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems vol. 1 no. 4, Dec. 1992, pp. 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. Waddell and R. K. Dybvig, “Fast and Effective Procedure Inlining”, Proc. 1997 Static Analysis Symposium (SAS ’97), Sept. 1997, pp. 35–52. Springer- Verlag LNCS vol. 1302. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saumya Debray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations