ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A compositional analysis of evaluation-order and its application
Full text PdfPdf (910 KB)
Source Conference on LISP and Functional Programming archive
Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming table of contents
Nice, France
Pages: 242 - 250  
Year of Publication: 1990
ISBN:0-89791-368-X
Authors
M. Draghicescu  Computer Science Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
S. Purushothaman  Computer Science Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Sponsors
INRIA : Institut Natl de Recherche en Info et en Automatique
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
SIGSAM: ACM Special Interest Group on Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 6,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/91556.91658
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We present a compositional definition of the order of evaluation of variables in a lazy first-order functional language. Unlike other published work, our analysis applies to all evaluation strategies which may use strictness information to change the normal (lazy) order of evaluation. At the same time it can be adapted to pure lazy evaluation yielding a sharper analysis in this case. It can also be adapted to take advantage of any information about the order in which primitive functions evaluate their arguments. The time complexity of the method is that of strictness analysis. We also present a compositional definition of the set of variables which denote locations where the result of an expression might be stored. This analysis yields a simple solution to the aliasing problem. Using these two analyses we develop a new algorithm for the destructive update problem.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

Blo86
 
Blo87
Bloss A., Hudak P. Path Semantics, Mathe,natical Foundations of Programming Language Semantics, LNCS 298, 476-489, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
 
Blo89a
Blo89b
Gop89
Hud85
 
Hud87
Hudak P. A semantic model of reference counting and its abstraction, S. Abramsky and C. Hankin, editors, Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages, Ellis Horwood Ltd., 1987.
 
Hug87
Hughes J. Analysing strictness by abstract interpretation of continuations, S. Abramsky and C. Hankin, editors, Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages, Ellis I-Iorwood Ltd., 1987.
 
Myc81
Mycroft A. Abstract interpretation and optiraising transformations .for applicative programs, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1981.
 
Sch86
Schmidt D.A. Denotational Semantics, Allyn and Bacon, 1986.


Collaborative Colleagues:
M. Draghicescu: colleagues
S. Purushothaman: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: