Results 1 
3 of
3
Functor Categories and TwoLevel Languages
 In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (FoSSaCS
, 1998
"... We propose a denotational semantics for the twolevel language of [GJ91, Gom92], and prove its correctness w.r.t. a standard denotational semantics. Other researchers (see [Gom91, GJ91, Gom92, JGS93, HM94]) have claimed correctness for lambdamix (or extensions of it) based on denotational models, b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a denotational semantics for the twolevel language of [GJ91, Gom92], and prove its correctness w.r.t. a standard denotational semantics. Other researchers (see [Gom91, GJ91, Gom92, JGS93, HM94]) have claimed correctness for lambdamix (or extensions of it) based on denotational models, but the proofs of such claims rely on imprecise definitions and are basically awed. At a technical level there are two important differences between our model and more naive models in Cpo: the domain for interpreting dynamic expressions is more abstract (we interpret code as terms modulo conversion), the semantics of newname is handled differently (we exploit functor categories). The key idea is to interpret a twolevel language in a suitable functor category Cpo D op rather than Cpo. The semantics of newname follows the ideas pioneered by Oles and Reynolds for modeling the stack discipline of Algollike languages. Indeed, we can think of the objects of D (i.e. the natural numbers) as ...
Proving the Correctness of Compiler Optimisations Based on Strictness Analysis
 in Proceedings 5th int. Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, LNCS 714
, 1993
"... . We show that compiler optimisations based on strictness analysis can be expressed formally in the functional framework using continuations. This formal presentation has two benefits: it allows us to give a rigorous correctness proof of the optimised compiler; and it exposes the various optimisatio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We show that compiler optimisations based on strictness analysis can be expressed formally in the functional framework using continuations. This formal presentation has two benefits: it allows us to give a rigorous correctness proof of the optimised compiler; and it exposes the various optimisations made possible by a strictness analysis. 1 Introduction Realistic compilers for imperative or functional languages include a number of optimisations based on nontrivial global analyses. Proving the correctness of such optimising compilers can be done in three steps: 1. proving the correctness of the original (unoptimised) compiler; 2. proving the correctness of the analysis; and 3. proving the correctness of the modifications of the simpleminded compiler to exploit the results of the analysis. A substantial amount of work has been devoted to steps (1) and (2) but there have been surprisingly few attempts at tackling step (3). In this paper we show how to carry out this third step in the...
CpsTranslation and the Correctness of Optimising Compilers
, 1992
"... We show that compiler optimisations based on strictness analysis can be expressed formally in the functional framework using continuations. This formal presentation has two benefits: it allows us to give a rigorous correctness proof of the optimised compiler; and it exposes the various optimisations ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that compiler optimisations based on strictness analysis can be expressed formally in the functional framework using continuations. This formal presentation has two benefits: it allows us to give a rigorous correctness proof of the optimised compiler; and it exposes the various optimisations made possible by a strictness analysis. These benefits are especially significant in the presence of partially evaluated data structures. 1 Introduction Realistic compilers for imperative or functional languages include a number of optimisations based on nontrivial global analyses. Proving the correctness of such optimising compilers should involve three steps: 1. proving the correctness of the original (unoptimised) compiler; 2. proving the correctness of the analysis; and 3. proving the correctness of the modifications of the simpleminded compiler to exploit the results of the analysis. A substantial amount of work has been devoted to steps (1) and (2) but there has been surprisingly ...