ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Correct flow analysis in continuation semantics
Full text PdfPdf (1.11 MB)
Source Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages archive
Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages table of contents
San Diego, California, United States
Pages: 204 - 218  
Year of Publication: 1988
ISBN:0-89791-252-7
Authors
M. Montenyohl  The Center for Advanced Compder Studies, University of SW Louisiuna
M. Wand  Northeastern University
Sponsors
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 18,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/73560.73578
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Three semantics-preserving transformations (static replacement, factoring, and combinator selection) are used to convert a continuation semantics into a formal description of a semantic analyzer and code generator. The result of this derivation is a compilation algorithm which performs type checking before code generation so that type-checking instructions are not generated in the target code. Both the flow analysis and the resulting optimizations are proved correct with respect to the original definition of the source language. The proof consists of showing that all restructuring transformations preserve the semantics of the source language. This transformational approach can be extended to derive correctness proofs of other flow analysis and code optimization techniques.


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.

 
1
Barbuti, R. and A. Martelli, (1983) "A Structured Ap~ proach to Static Semantics Correctness," Science of Computer Programming 3,3 223-321.
 
2
Donzeau-Gouge, V., (19'80) "Denotational Definition of Properties of Program Computations" in ,Program Flow Analysi.s: Theory and Applications edited by S. S. Muchnick and N. D. Jones. Englewood Cliifs, New Jersey: Prent~ce-Hali.
3
4
5
 
6
Milner, R., (1978) "A Theory of Type Polymorphism in Programming," Journal of Computer and System Sciences 17, 348-375.
 
7
 
8
Nielson, F., (I982) "A Denotational Framework for Data Flow Analysis," Acta Informatica 18, 265-287.
9
 
10
Pleban, U. F. and S. S. Muchnick, (1980) "A Denotational Semantics Approach to Program Optimization" Proceedings of the 1980 Conference on Information Sciences and System~ Princeton: Princeton University Dept. of EE and CS, 211-215.
 
11
Turner, D. A., (1979) "A New Implementation Technique for Applicative Lunguages," Software Practice and Experience 9, 31-49.
 
12
Wand, M., (1980) "Different Advice on Structuring Compilers and Proving Them Correct," Indiana University Computer Science Dept. Technical Report 95.
13
14
 
15