205 research outputs found

    An Overview of Ciao and its uses of DataLog for Program Analysis and Optimization

    Full text link
    -Objectives: ‱Next-generation, high-level, multiparadigm programming language: Ciao. ‱Program development environments which perform, as part of compilation: VeriïŹcation / debugging(i.e., detect bugs and offer guarantees of safety, reliability, and efïŹciency.) Optimization (optimized compilation, parallelization, ...)Using throughout techniques that are at the same time rigorous and practical. ‱Apply in a real system, with users –reality check! ‱Support also mainstream languages (e.g., Java / Java bytecode). - Several uses of Datalog and related techniques

    Incremental and Modular Context-sensitive Analysis

    Full text link
    Context-sensitive global analysis of large code bases can be expensive, which can make its use impractical during software development. However, there are many situations in which modifications are small and isolated within a few components, and it is desirable to reuse as much as possible previous analysis results. This has been achieved to date through incremental global analysis fixpoint algorithms that achieve cost reductions at fine levels of granularity, such as changes in program lines. However, these fine-grained techniques are not directly applicable to modular programs, nor are they designed to take advantage of modular structures. This paper describes, implements, and evaluates an algorithm that performs efficient context-sensitive analysis incrementally on modular partitions of programs. The experimental results show that the proposed modular algorithm shows significant improvements, in both time and memory consumption, when compared to existing non-modular, fine-grain incremental analysis techniques. Furthermore, thanks to the proposed inter-modular propagation of analysis information, our algorithm also outperforms traditional modular analysis even when analyzing from scratch.Comment: 56 pages, 27 figures. To be published in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. v3 corresponds to the extended version of the ICLP2018 Technical Communication. v4 is the revised version submitted to Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. v5 (this one) is the final author version to be published in TPL

    Synbit:Synthesizing Bidirectional Programs using Unidirectional Sketches

    Get PDF

    An overview of ciao and its design philosophy

    Get PDF
    We provide an overall description of the Ciao multiparadigm programming system emphasizing some of the novel aspects and motivations behind its design and implementation. An important aspect of Ciao is that, in addition to supporting logic programming (and, in particular, Prolog), it provides the programmer with a large number of useful features from different programming paradigms and styles and that the use of each of these features (including those of Prolog) can be turned on and off at will for each program module. Thus, a given module may be using, e.g., higher order functions and constraints, while another module may be using assignment, predicates, Prolog meta-programming, and concurrency. Furthermore, the language is designed to be extensible in a simple and modular way. Another important aspect of Ciao is its programming environment, which provides a powerful preprocessor (with an associated assertion language) capable of statically finding non-trivial bugs, verifying that programs comply with specifications, and performing many types of optimizations (including automatic parallelization). Such optimizations produce code that is highly competitive with other dynamic languages or, with the (experimental) optimizing compiler, even that of static languages, all while retaining the flexibility and interactive development of a dynamic language. This compilation architecture supports modularity and separate compilation throughout. The environment also includes a powerful autodocumenter and a unit testing framework, both closely integrated with the assertion system. The paper provides an informal overview of the language and program development environment. It aims at illustrating the design philosophy rather than at being exhaustive, which would be impossible in a single journal paper, pointing instead to previous Ciao literature

    Sparcl:A Language for Partially-Invertible Computation

    Get PDF

    Side-Effect Localization for Lazy, Purely Functional Languages via Aspects

    Get PDF
    Many side-effecting programming activities, such as profiling and tracing, can be formulated as crosscutting concerns and be framed as side-effecting aspects in the aspect-oriented programming paradigm. The benefit gained from this separation of concerns is particularly evident in purely functional programming, as adding such aspects using techniques such as monadification will generally lead to crosscutting changes. This paper presents an approach to provide side-effecting aspects for lazy purely functional languages in a user transparent fashion. We propose a simple yet direct state manipulation construct for developing side-effecting aspects and devise a systematic monadification scheme to translate the woven code to monadic style purely functional code. Furthermore, we present a static and dynamic semantics of the aspect programs and reason about the correctness of our monadification scheme with respect to them

    Verification of Imperative Programs by Constraint Logic Program Transformation

    Full text link
    We present a method for verifying partial correctness properties of imperative programs that manipulate integers and arrays by using techniques based on the transformation of constraint logic programs (CLP). We use CLP as a metalanguage for representing imperative programs, their executions, and their properties. First, we encode the correctness of an imperative program, say prog, as the negation of a predicate 'incorrect' defined by a CLP program T. By construction, 'incorrect' holds in the least model of T if and only if the execution of prog from an initial configuration eventually halts in an error configuration. Then, we apply to program T a sequence of transformations that preserve its least model semantics. These transformations are based on well-known transformation rules, such as unfolding and folding, guided by suitable transformation strategies, such as specialization and generalization. The objective of the transformations is to derive a new CLP program TransfT where the predicate 'incorrect' is defined either by (i) the fact 'incorrect.' (and in this case prog is not correct), or by (ii) the empty set of clauses (and in this case prog is correct). In the case where we derive a CLP program such that neither (i) nor (ii) holds, we iterate the transformation. Since the problem is undecidable, this process may not terminate. We show through examples that our method can be applied in a rather systematic way, and is amenable to automation by transferring to the field of program verification many techniques developed in the field of program transformation.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

    Proving Correctness of Imperative Programs by Linearizing Constrained Horn Clauses

    Full text link
    We present a method for verifying the correctness of imperative programs which is based on the automated transformation of their specifications. Given a program prog, we consider a partial correctness specification of the form {φ}\{\varphi\} prog {ψ}\{\psi\}, where the assertions φ\varphi and ψ\psi are predicates defined by a set Spec of possibly recursive Horn clauses with linear arithmetic (LA) constraints in their premise (also called constrained Horn clauses). The verification method consists in constructing a set PC of constrained Horn clauses whose satisfiability implies that {φ}\{\varphi\} prog {ψ}\{\psi\} is valid. We highlight some limitations of state-of-the-art constrained Horn clause solving methods, here called LA-solving methods, which prove the satisfiability of the clauses by looking for linear arithmetic interpretations of the predicates. In particular, we prove that there exist some specifications that cannot be proved valid by any of those LA-solving methods. These specifications require the proof of satisfiability of a set PC of constrained Horn clauses that contain nonlinear clauses (that is, clauses with more than one atom in their premise). Then, we present a transformation, called linearization, that converts PC into a set of linear clauses (that is, clauses with at most one atom in their premise). We show that several specifications that could not be proved valid by LA-solving methods, can be proved valid after linearization. We also present a strategy for performing linearization in an automatic way and we report on some experimental results obtained by using a preliminary implementation of our method.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Proceedings of ICLP 201

    Recovering Grammar Relationships for the Java Language Specification

    Get PDF
    Grammar convergence is a method that helps discovering relationships between different grammars of the same language or different language versions. The key element of the method is the operational, transformation-based representation of those relationships. Given input grammars for convergence, they are transformed until they are structurally equal. The transformations are composed from primitive operators; properties of these operators and the composed chains provide quantitative and qualitative insight into the relationships between the grammars at hand. We describe a refined method for grammar convergence, and we use it in a major study, where we recover the relationships between all the grammars that occur in the different versions of the Java Language Specification (JLS). The relationships are represented as grammar transformation chains that capture all accidental or intended differences between the JLS grammars. This method is mechanized and driven by nominal and structural differences between pairs of grammars that are subject to asymmetric, binary convergence steps. We present the underlying operator suite for grammar transformation in detail, and we illustrate the suite with many examples of transformations on the JLS grammars. We also describe the extraction effort, which was needed to make the JLS grammars amenable to automated processing. We include substantial metadata about the convergence process for the JLS so that the effort becomes reproducible and transparent
    • 

    corecore