Advertisement

Compilation and Memory Management for ASF+SDF

  • Mark van den Brand
  • Paul Klint
  • Pieter Olivier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1575)

Abstract

Can formal specification techniques be scaled-up to industrial problems such as the development of domain-specific languages and the renovation of large COBOL systems?

We have developed a compiler for the specification formalism ASF+SDF that has been used successfully to meet such industrial challenges. This result is achieved in two ways: the compiler performs a variety of optimizations and generates efficient C code, and the compiled code uses a run-time memory management system based on maximal subterm sharing and mark-and-sweep garbage collection.

We present an overview of these techniques and evaluate their effectiveness in several benchmarks. It turns out that execution speed of compiled ASF+SDF specifications is at least as good as that of comparable systems, while memory usage is in many cases an order of magnitude smaller.

Keywords

Normal Form Memory Usage Function Symbol Garbage Collection Memory Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, J.R.: Anatomy of LISP. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appel, A.W., Goncalves, M.J.R.: Hash-consing garbage collection. Technical Report CS-TR-412-93, Princeton University (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Appel, A.W., MacQueen, D.: A standard ML compiler. In: Kahn, G. (ed.) FPCA 1987. LNCS, vol. 274, pp. 301–324. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnold, B.R.T., van Deursen, A., Res, M.: An algebraic specification of a language for describing financial products. In: Wirsing, M. (ed.) ICSE-17 Workshop on Formal Methods Application in Software Engineering, pp. 6–13. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergstra, J.A., Heering, J., Klint, P. (eds.): Algebraic Specification. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, H.: Space efficient conservative garbage collection. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1991 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, SIGPLAN Notices, June 1993, vol. 28, pp. 197–206 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, H., Weiser, M.: Garbage collection in an uncooperative environment. Software - Practice and Experience (SPE) 18(9), 807–820 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borovanský, P., Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H., Moreau, P.-E., Vittek, M.: ELAN: A logical framework based on computational systems. In: Meseguer, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Rewriting Logic. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 4. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van den Brand, M.G.J., van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Klusener, S., van der Meulen, A.E.: Industrial applications of ASF+SDF. In: Wirsing, M., Nivat, M. (eds.) AMAST 1996. LNCS, vol. 1101. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van den Brand, M.G.J., Heering, J., Klint, P., Olivier, P.A.: Compiling rewrite systems: The asf+sdf compiler. Technical report, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI) (1999) (in preparation)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van den Brand, M.G.J., Klint, P., Verhoef, C.: Term rewriting for sale. In: Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and its Applications. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 15, pp. 139–161. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van den Brand, M.G.J., Sellink, M.P.A., Verhoef, C.: Generation of components for software renovation factories from context-free grammars. In: Baxter, I.D., Quilici, A., Verhoef, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 144–153 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van den Brand, M.G.J., Visser, E.: Generation of formatters for context-free languages. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5, 1–41 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brunekreef, J.J.: A transformation tool for pure Prolog programs. In: Gallagher, J.P. (ed.) LOPSTR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1207, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Deursen, A., Heering, J., Klint, P. (eds.): Language Prototyping: An Algebraic Specification Approach. AMAST Series in Computing, vol. 5. World Scientific, Singapore (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Didrich, K., Fett, A., Gerke, C., Grieskamp, W., Pepper, P.: OPAL: Design and implementation of an algebraic programming language. In: Gutknecht, J. (ed.) Programming Languages and System Architectures. LNCS, vol. 782, pp. 228–244. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dik, C.H.S.: A fast implementation of the Algebraic Specification Formalism. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, Programming Research Group (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartel, P.H., et al.: Benchmarking implementations of functional languages with ’pseudoknot’, a float-intensive benchmark. Journal of Functional Programming 6, 621–655 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heering, J., Hendriks, P.R.H., Klint, P., Rekers, J.: The syntax definition formalism DF — Reference manual. In: SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 24(11), pp. 43–75 (1989), Most recent version available at http://www.cwi.nl/~gipe/
  20. 20.
    Jones, R., Lins, R.: Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management. Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peyton Jones, S.L., Hall, C.V., Hammond, K., Partain, W.D., Wadler, P.L.: The lasgow haskell compiler: a technical overview. In: Proc. Joint Framework for Information Technology (JFIT) Technical Conference, pp. 249–257 (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan, S.: A compiler for conditional term rewriting systems. In: Lescanne, P. (ed.) RTA 1987. LNCS, vol. 256. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klint, P.: A meta-environment for generating programming environments. ACM transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2, 176–201 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plasmeijer, M.J., van Eekelen, M.C.J.D.: Concurrent Clean - version 1.0 - Language Reference Manual, draft version. Department of Computer Science, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Terashima, M., Kanada, Y.: HLisp—its concept, implementation and applications. Journal of Information Processing 13(3), 265–275 (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Visser, E.: Syntax Definition for Language Prototyping. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wadler, P.: Deforestation: Transforming programs to eliminate trees. Theoretical Computer Science  73(2), 231–248 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark van den Brand
    • 1
  • Paul Klint
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pieter Olivier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering Kruislaan 413CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Programming Research GroupUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations