We describe a new compiler for Standard ML called TIL, that is based on four technologies: intensional polymorphism, tag-free garbage collection, conventional functional language optimization, and loop optimization. We use intensional polymorphism and tag-free garbage collection to provide specialized representations, even though SML is a polymorphic language. We use conventional functional language optimization to reduce the cost of intensional polymorphism, and loop optimization to generate good code for recursive functions. We present an example of TIL compiling an SML function to machine code, and compare the performance of TIL code against that of a widely used compiler, Standard ML of New Jersey.

Proof-carrying code is a framework for the mechanical verification of safety properties of machine language programs, but the problem arises of quis custodiat ipsos custodes---who will verify the verifier itself? Foundational proof-carrying code is verification from the smallest possible set of axioms, using the simplest possible verifier and the smallest possible runtime system. I will describe many of the mathematical and engineering problems to be solved in the construction of a foundational proof-carrying code system.

Region-based memory management is an alternative to standard tracing garbage collection that makes potentially dangerous operations such as memory deallocation explicit but verifiably safe. In this article, we present a new compiler intermediate language, called the Capability Calculus, that supports region-based memory management and enjoys a provably safe type system. Unlike previous region-based type systems, region lifetimes need not be lexically scoped and yet the language may be checked for safety without complex analyses. Therefore, our type system may be deployed in settings such as extensible operating systems where both the performance and safety of untrusted code is important.

Many functions have to be written over and over again for different datatypes, either because datatypes change during the development of programs, or because functions with similar functionality are needed on different datatypes. Examples of such functions are pretty printers, debuggers, equality functions, unifiers, pattern matchers, rewriting functions, etc. Such functions are called polytypic functions. A polytypic function is a function that is defined by induction on the structure of user-defined datatypes. This paper extends a functional language (a subset of Haskell) with a construct for writing polytypic functions. The extended language type checks definitions of polytypic functions, and infers the types of all other expressions using an extension of Jones ' theories of qualified types and higher-order polymorphism. The semantics of the programs in the extended language is obtained by adding type arguments to functions in a dictionary passing style. Programs in the extended language are translated to Haskell. 1

Abstract not found

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of the Advanced Research Projects Agency or the U.S. Government. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the We study the typing properties of closure conversion for simply-typed and polymorphic-calculi. Unlike most accounts of closure conversion, which only treat the untyped-calculus, we translate well-typed source programs to well-typed target programs. This allows later compiler phases to take advantage of types for representation analysis and tag-free garbage collection, and it facilitates correctness proofs. Our account of closure conversion for the simply-typed language takes advantage of a simple model of objects by mapping closures to existentials. Closure conversion for the polymorphic language requires additional type machinery, namely translucency in the style of Harper and Lillibridge's module calculus, to express the type of a closure.

Languages that support abstraction and modular structure, such as Standard ML, Modula, Ada, and (more or less) C++, may have deeply nested dependency hierarchies among source files. In ML the problem is particularly severe because ML's powerful parameterized module (functor) facility entails dependencies among implementation modules, not just among interfaces.

Intensional polymorphism, the ability to dispatch to di#erent routines based on types at run time, enables a variety of advanced implementation techniques for polymorphic languages, including tag-free garbage collection, unboxed function arguments, polymorphic marshalling, and flattened data structures. To date, languages that support intensional polymorphism have required a type-passing (as opposed to type-erasure) interpretation where types are constructed and passed to polymorphic functions at run time. Unfortunately, type-passing su#ers from a number of drawbacks: it requires duplication of run-time constructs at the term and type levels, it prevents abstraction, and it severely complicates polymorphic closure conversion.

introduc e a notion of guarded rec ursive (g.r.) datatype c#w struc tors, generalizing the notion ofrec# rsive datatypes in func tional programming languages suc h as ML and Haskell. We address both theoret ic#t and prac# ic## issues resulted from this generalization. On one hand, we design a type system to formalize the notion of g.r. datatypec onstruc - tors and then prove the soundness of the type system. On the other hand, we present some signific ant applic ations (e.g., implementing objec ts, implementing stagedc omputation, etc# ) of g.r. datatype c# nstruc#S rs, arguing that g.r. datatypec onstruc torsc an have far-reac hingc onsequenc es in programming. The mainc ontribution of the paper lies in the rec#I0 ition and then the formalization of a programming notion that is of both theoretic# l interest and prac tic# l use.

Various code certification systems allow the certification and static verification of important safety properties such as memory and control-flow safety. These systems are valuable tools for verifying that untrusted and potentially malicious code is safe before execution. However, one important safety property that is not usually included is that programs adhere to specific bounds on resource consumption, such as running time. We present a decidable type system capable of specifying and certifying bounds on resource consumption. Our system makes two advances over previous resource bound certification systems, both of which are necessary for a practical system: We allow the execution time of programs and their subroutines to vary, depending on their arguments, and we provide a fully automatic compiler generating certified executables from source-level programs. The principal device in our approach is a strategy for simulating dependent types using sum and inductive kinds. 1 Introducti...