Generating compiler optimizations from proofs

Conference Record of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 389-402

  Tate, Ross ^a   Stepp, Michael ^a   Lerner, Sorin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Compiler optimization; Explanation based learning; Proof generalization

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION-SPECIFIC OPTIMIZATIONS; AUTOMATED TECHNIQUES; BEFORE AND AFTER; COMPILER OPTIMIZATIONS; EXPLANATION BASED LEARNING; OPTIMIZATION RULES; OPTIMIZERS; QUERY OPTIMIZATION; RELATIONAL DATABASE; TRANSLATION VALIDATION; TYPE ERRORS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; LINGUISTICS; OPTIMIZATION; PROGRAM TRANSLATORS;

PROGRAM COMPILERS;

EID: 77950909547     PISSN: 07308566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1706299.1706345     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G. E. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories: The Joy of Cats. John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
2. S. Bansal and A. Aiken. Automatic generation of peephole superoptimizers. In ASPLOS, 2006.
3. R. Bergmann. Explanation-based learning for the automated reuse of programs. In CompEuro, 1992.
4. K. D. Cooper, D. Subramanian, and L. Torczon. Adaptive optimizing compilers for the 21st century. The Journal of Supercomputing, 23(1):7-22, Aug. 2002.
5. A. Deutsch. Author of [6]. Personal communication, July 2009.
6. A. Deutsch, A. Nash, and J. Remmel. The chase revisited. In PODS, 2008.
7. S. Dietzen and F. Pfenning. Higher-order and modal logic as a framework for explanation-based generalization. Machine Learning, 9(1):23-55, June 1992.
8. T. Ellman. Generalizing logic circuit designs by analyzing proofs of correctness. In IJCAI, volume 1, pages 643-646, 1985.
9. T. Ellman. Explanation-based learning: a survey of programs and perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(2):163-221, June 1989.
10. M. Gandhe and G. Venkatesh. Improving prolog performance by inductive proof generalizations. In Knowledge Based Computer Systems, 1990.
11. S. Z. Guyer and C. Lin. Broadway: A compiler for exploiting the domain-specific semantics of software libraries. Proceedings of IEEE, 93(2), 2005.
12. C. Haack and J. B. Wells. Type error slicing in implicitly typed higher-order languages. Science of Computer Programming, 50(1-3):189-224, 2004.
13. R. Joshi, G. Nelson, and K. Randall. Denali: a goal-directed superoptimizer. In PLDI, June 2002.
14. S. Kundu, Z. Tatlock, and S. Lerner. Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalence. In PLDI, 2009.
15. S. Lerner, T. Millstein, E. Rice, and C. Chambers. Automated soundness proofs for dataflow analyses and transformations via local rules. In POPL, 2005.
16. H. Massalin. Superoptimizer: a look at the smallest program. In ASPLOS, 1987.
17. A. McGovern, J. E. B. Moss, and A. G. Barto. Building a basic block instruction scheduler with reinforcement learning and rollouts. Machine Learning, Special Issue on Reinforcement Learning, 49(2/3):141-160, May 2002.
18. R. Millner. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 1978.
19. M. Stephenson and S. Amarasinghe. Predicting unroll factors using supervised classification. In CGO, Mar. 2005.
20. M. Stephenson, S. Amarasinghe, M. Martin, and U.-M. O'Reilly. Meta optimization: Improving compiler heuristics with machine learning. In PLDI, June 2003.
21. R. Tate, M. Stepp, and S. Lerner. Generating compiler optimizations from proofs. Technical report, University of California, San Diego, Nov. 2009.
22. R. Tate, M. Stepp, Z. Tatlock, and S. Lerner. Equality saturation: a new approach to optimization. In POPL, Jan. 2009.
23. S. W. K. Tjiang and J. L. Hennessy. Sharlit - A tool for building optimizers. In PLDI, 1992.
24. D. L. Whitfield and M. L. Soffa. An approach for exploring code improving transformations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19(6):1053-1084, Nov. 1997.