[Haskell-cafe] Tiger compiler: variable escaping analysis phase
José Romildo Malaquias
j.romildo at gmail.com
Tue Jun 22 10:34:16 EDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:54:08PM +0200, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
> 2010/6/22 José Romildo Malaquias <j.romildo at gmail.com>:
> > Hello.
> > I have been teaching an introductory course on compiler construction to
> > our undergraduates students using Appel's "Modern Compiler
> > Implementation in Java". There are also versions of the book in ML and
> > C. The books explain how to write a compiler for the Tiger programming
> > language.
> > Now I want to implement a Tiger compiler in Haskell.
> > The lexer and parser (built with the help of alex and happy) and the
> > type checker are already working.
> > Next step is implementing a variable escape analysis phase, needed for
> > the intermediate code generator. The objective of this phase is to find
> > out if each variable escapes or not. In general an escaping variable
> > should be allocated in the stack frame (in memory). Non escaping
> > variables may be allocated in the stack frame or in a register.
> > Generally, a variable escapes if it is passed by reference, its address
> > is taken (using C's & operator, for instance), or it is accessed from a
> > nested function. Only the last is possible with Tiger.
> > The approach adopted by Appel in his books is easy: a muttable field in
> > the abstract syntax of variable declarations, of for expressions, and of
> > function formal parameters, which introduce new variables, is used to
> > collect the escaping information of the variable. In the ML version of
> > the book this is a reference to boolean (bool ref). Initially, in a
> > conservative approach, the reference is initialized to true.
> > In the variable escaping analysis phase of the compiler, a function
> > findEscape looks for escaping variables and record this information in
> > the escape fields of the abstract syntax. To do this the entire abstract
> > syntax tree is traversed looking for escaping uses of every variable,
> > and, when found, the field is set to true.
> > findEscape uses a symbol table to accomplish its work, binding variable
> > names to a reference to boolean (the same reference used in the abstract
> > syntax tree). When processing a variable declaraction, for instance, it
> > inserts the variable name into the symbol table, binding it to its
> > escaping field. When processing an expression which is a simple
> > variable, if the variable occurs in a nested function, its binding in
> > the symbol table is set to true. This reflects directly in the abstract
> > syntax tree of the variable declaration, as the escape field in the
> > variable declaration and the binding in the symbol table are the same
> > reference to bool.
> > I am look for good ways to implement the variable escaping analysis
> > phase in Haskell, which is a pure language. I see two alternatives:
> > 1) adopt the same approach as Appel used in his ML version of the
> > compiler: use a mutable reference in the IO monad (Data.IORef) to
> > hold the variable escaping information, and write everything inside
> > the IO monad
> > 2) build a new abstract syntax tree with updated information regarding
> > variable escaping
> > The second option is more elegant in my point of view, but would be much
> > less efficient than the first one.
> > So I want to know what advices Haskell programmers has to me about
> > implementing this phase of the Tiger compiler in Haskell.
> I think there is a third way to do what you describe (if I understood
> everything). You can use a Writer monad (basically a state monad where
> the state is never read, only written to).
> Essentially you walk the tree and record the information you want (a
> mapping from variable name to a boolean 'does-escape'). That
> information is threaded through the tree-walking functions.
> The information you record is the underlying monoid of the Writer monad.
The 'does-escape' information should be available for each variable at
the point the variable is introduced (a variable declaration or a formal
parameter in a function declaration, for instance). If this information
is collected in another data structure that is not the abstract syntax
tree, it may be difficult to access the 'does-escape' information when
In this line I thought about using a mapping from a pair consisting of
the variable name and its position in the source code, to the
'does-escape' boolean. The findEscape function would construct this
mapping while traversing the abstract syntax tree.
The function that generates the intermediate representation of the
program would be given the abstract syntax tree and the escaping mapping
as arguments. When traversing the abstract syntax tree to generate code,
it would consult the escaping mapping to determine if a varable escapes
or not, when allocating a variable. The variable name and its position
are available from the abstract syntax tree.
Are you suggesting that the Writer monad would be used to construct a
data structure like the escaping mapping I mentioned above?
> Anyway, the second option sounds better than the first one as you
> don't have to rely on IO (for which IMO there is no real reason in the
> problem you provide).
More information about the Haskell-Cafe