|Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes firstname.lastname@example.org (Oukseh Lee) (1998-10-17)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes email@example.com (1998-10-18)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes M-Jourdan@calva.net (1998-10-18)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Fry) (1998-10-18)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes email@example.com (Christopher W. Milner) (1998-10-21)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-10-24)|
|Re: Reconstructing the Types of Stack-Machine Codes Jan.Vitek@cui.unige.ch (1998-10-30)|
|From:||email@example.com (Chris Dollin)|
|Date:||24 Oct 1998 01:46:09 -0400|
|Organization:||Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.|
Oukseh Lee <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Whoever knows about TYPE ANALYSIS of STACK-MACHINE CODES?
The paper I have to hand (by a strange coincidence) is
Type-checking in an untyped language
Int. J. Man-Machine Studies (1984) 20, 157-167
He describes a technique for taking the virtual machine code for Pop11
(which you may regard for these purposes as a Lisp with an
Algol-family syntax and a Postscript/Forth-style open stack) and doing
type inference to spot places where the code is either type-incorrect
or additional run-time type-checks should be inserted.
Ramsay's motivation is checking the validity of code, rather than
run-time efficiency, but there are obvious cross-overs.
My very rough summary is that the virtual machine operations are
tracked, doing stack simulation while you can and using the results of
previous analyses when simulating function calls [there is hackery to
cope with recursions and calling not-yet-analysed
functions]. Conditionals and loops are handled by generating sets of
linear execution paths and recombining the results from those paths
(doing a type merge).
It makes interesting reading. I remember thinking at the time that it
was a compelling demonstration that this kind of analysis is better
done on ASTs than on linearised code -- but then you have to go with
what you've got, yes?
Notettes: Pop11 is dynamically typed, not "untyped" (a term better
used for languages like BCPL). I'm a long-time Pop11 fan, which, given
my description of Pop above, you may use to calibrate my sanity. And I
know the reference to the paper is right, because I have a paper copy
here in my hot sticky hands.
Regards, | ``"I can't suit myself," said Weinbaum, a little petulantly.
Kers. | "I work for the Government".'' - Blish, "The Quincunx of Time".
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.