Recap Let’s do a recap of what we’ve seen so far Started with worklist algorithm for reaching definitions.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Continuing Abstract Interpretation We have seen: 1.How to compile abstract syntax trees into control-flow graphs 2.Lattices, as structures that describe.
Advertisements

Static Single Assignment CS 540. Spring Efficient Representations for Reachability Efficiency is measured in terms of the size of the representation.
CS412/413 Introduction to Compilers Radu Rugina Lecture 37: DU Chains and SSA Form 29 Apr 02.
1 CS 201 Compiler Construction Data Flow Framework.
Foundations of Data-Flow Analysis. Basic Questions Under what circumstances is the iterative algorithm used in the data-flow analysis correct? How precise.
CSE 231 : Advanced Compilers Building Program Analyzers.
CSE 231 : Advanced Compilers Building Program Analyzers.
Common Sub-expression Elim Want to compute when an expression is available in a var Domain:
Worklist algorithm Initialize all d i to the empty set Store all nodes onto a worklist while worklist is not empty: –remove node n from worklist –apply.
Another example: constant prop Set D = 2 { x ! N | x ∊ Vars Æ N ∊ Z } x := N in out F x := N (in) = in – { x ! * } [ { x ! N } x := y op z in out F x :=
Correctness. Until now We’ve seen how to define dataflow analyses How do we know our analyses are correct? We could reason about each individual analysis.
From last time: live variables Set D = 2 Vars Lattice: (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) = (2 Vars, µ, ;,Vars, [, Å ) x := y op z in out F x := y op z (out) = out –
Global optimization. Data flow analysis To generate better code, need to examine definitions and uses of variables beyond basic blocks. With use- definition.
1 Iterative Program Analysis Part I Mooly Sagiv Tel Aviv University Textbook: Principles of Program.
Administrative info Subscribe to the class mailing list –instructions are on the class web page, which is accessible from my home page, which is accessible.
Another example: constant prop Set D = 2 { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z } x := N in out F x := N (in) = in – { x ! * } [ { x ! N } x := y op z in out F x :=
From last time: Lattices A lattice is a tuple (S, v, ?, >, t, u ) such that: –(S, v ) is a poset – 8 a 2 S. ? v a – 8 a 2 S. a v > –Every two elements.
Data Flow Analysis Compiler Design Nov. 3, 2005.
From last time: reaching definitions For each use of a variable, determine what assignments could have set the value being read from the variable Information.
Constraints for reaching definitions Using may-point-to information: out = in [ { x ! s | x 2 may-point-to(p) } Using must-point-to aswell: out = in –
Another example p := &x; *p := 5 y := x + 1;. Another example p := &x; *p := 5 y := x + 1; x := 5; *p := 3 y := x + 1; ???
Back to lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) = (2 A, ¶, A, ;, Å, [ ) where A = { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z } What’s the problem with this lattice? Lattice is infinitely.
Data Flow Analysis Compiler Design October 5, 2004 These slides live on the Web. I obtained them from Jeff Foster and he said that he obtained.
Loop invariant detection using SSA An expression is invariant in a loop L iff: (base cases) –it’s a constant –it’s a variable use, all of whose single.
CS 412/413 Spring 2007Introduction to Compilers1 Lecture 29: Control Flow Analysis 9 Apr 07 CS412/413 Introduction to Compilers Tim Teitelbaum.
Class canceled next Tuesday. Recap: Components of IR Control dependencies: sequencing of operations –evaluation of if & then –side-effects of statements.
Administrative stuff Office hours: After class on Tuesday.
Constraints for reaching definitions Using may-point-to information: out = in [ { x ! s | x 2 may-point-to(p) } Using must-point-to aswell: out = in –
1 CS 201 Compiler Construction Lecture 6 Code Optimizations: Constant Propagation & Folding.
Data Flow Analysis Compiler Design Nov. 8, 2005.
Course Outline Traditional Static Program Analysis –Theory Compiler Optimizations; Control Flow Graphs, Data-flow Analysis Data-flow Frameworks --- today’s.
San Diego October 4-7, 2006 Over 1,000 women in computing Events for undergraduates considering careers and graduate school Events for graduate students.
Project Project proposal due today (lots of projects have already sent theirs in!) I want some concrete results in 3 weeks! –for implementation projects,
Recap: Reaching defns algorithm From last time: reaching defns worklist algo We want to avoid using structure of the domain outside of the flow functions.
From last lecture x := y op z in out F x := y op z (in) = in [ x ! in(y) op in(z) ] where a op b =
Direction of analysis Although constraints are not directional, flow functions are All flow functions we have seen so far are in the forward direction.
Projects. Dataflow analysis Dataflow analysis: what is it? A common framework for expressing algorithms that compute information about a program Why.
Project web page
Recap from last time: live variables x := 5 y := x + 2 x := x + 1 y := x y...
1 CS 201 Compiler Construction Lecture 4 Data Flow Framework.
From last time: reaching definitions For each use of a variable, determine what assignments could have set the value being read from the variable Information.
From last lecture We want to find a fixed point of F, that is to say a map m such that m = F(m) Define ?, which is ? lifted to be a map: ? = e. ? Compute.
Direction of analysis Although constraints are not directional, flow functions are All flow functions we have seen so far are in the forward direction.
Even more formal To reason more formally about termination and precision, we re-express our worklist algorithm mathematically We will use fixed points.
Termination Still, it’s annoying to have to perform a join in the worklist algorithm It would be nice to get rid of it, if there is a property of the flow.
Prof. Bodik CS 164 Lecture 16, Fall Global Optimization Lecture 16.
Constant Propagation. The constant propagation framework is different from all the data-flow problems discussed so far, in that It has an unbounded set.
Precision Going back to constant prop, in what cases would we lose precision?
Example x := read() v := a + b x := x + 1 w := x + 1 a := w v := a + b z := x + 1 t := a + b.
Solving fixpoint equations
Compiler Construction Lecture 16 Data-Flow Analysis.
CS 614: Theory and Construction of Compilers Lecture 17 Fall 2003 Department of Computer Science University of Alabama Joel Jones.
Formalization of DFA using lattices. Recall worklist algorithm let m: map from edge to computed value at edge let worklist: work list of nodes for each.
Compiler Principles Fall Compiler Principles Lecture 11: Loop Optimizations Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University.
1 Iterative Program Analysis Abstract Interpretation Mooly Sagiv Tel Aviv University Textbook:
Data Flow Analysis II AModel Checking and Abstract Interpretation Feb. 2, 2011.
U NIVERSITY OF D ELAWARE C OMPUTER & I NFORMATION S CIENCES D EPARTMENT Optimizing Compilers CISC 673 Spring 2011 Yet More Data flow analysis John Cavazos.
Lub and glb Given a poset (S, · ), and two elements a 2 S and b 2 S, then the: –least upper bound (lub) is an element c such that a · c, b · c, and 8 d.
DFA foundations Simone Campanoni
Dataflow analysis.
Simone Campanoni DFA foundations Simone Campanoni
Another example: constant prop
Dataflow analysis.
Fall Compiler Principles Lecture 10: Global Optimizations
Data Flow Analysis Compiler Design
Formalization of DFA using lattices
Formalization of DFA using lattices
Formalization of DFA using lattices
Formalization of DFA using lattices
Presentation transcript:

Recap Let’s do a recap of what we’ve seen so far Started with worklist algorithm for reaching definitions

Worklist algorithm for reaching defns let m: map from edge to computed value at edge let worklist: work list of nodes for each edge e in CFG do m(e) := ; for each node n do worklist.add(n) while (worklist.empty.not) do let n := worklist.remove_any; let info_in := m(n.incoming_edges); let info_out := F(n, info_in); for i := 0.. info_out.length do let new_info := m(n.outgoing_edges[i]) [ info_out[i]; if (m(n.outgoing_edges[i])  new_info]) m(n.outgoing_edges[i]) := new_info; worklist.add(n.outgoing_edges[i].dst);

Generalized algorithm using lattices let m: map from edge to computed value at edge let worklist: work list of nodes for each edge e in CFG do m(e) := ? for each node n do worklist.add(n) while (worklist.empty.not) do let n := worklist.remove_any; let info_in := m(n.incoming_edges); let info_out := F(n, info_in); for i := 0.. info_out.length do let new_info := m(n.outgoing_edges[i]) t info_out[i]; if (m(n.outgoing_edges[i])  new_info]) m(n.outgoing_edges[i]) := new_info; worklist.add(n.outgoing_edges[i].dst);

Next step: removed outer join Wanted to remove the outer join, while still providing termination guarantee To do this, we re-expressed our algorithm more formally We first defined a “global” flow function F, and then expressed our algorithm as a fixed point computation

Fixedpoint view We want to find a fixed point of F, that is to say a map m such that m = F(m) Define ?, which is ? lifted to be a map: ? = e. ? Compute F( ? ), then F(F( ? )), then F(F(F( ? ))),... until the result doesn’t change anymore

Guarantees If F is monotonic and height of lattice is finite: iterative algorithm terminates If F is monotonic, the fixed point we find is the least fixed point. Any questions so far?

What about if we start at top? What if we start with > : F( > ), F(F( > )), F(F(F( > ))) We get the greatest fixed point Why do we prefer the least fixed point? –More precise

Graphically x y 10

Graphically x y 10

Graphically x y 10

Graphically, another way

Another example: constant prop Set D = x := N in out F x := n (in) = x := y op z in out F x := y op z (in) =

Another example: constant prop Set D = 2 { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z } x := N in out F x := n (in) = in – { x ! * } [ { x ! N } x := y op z in out F x := y op z (in) = in – { x ! * } [ { x ! N | ( y ! N 1 ) 2 in Æ ( z ! N 2 ) 2 in Æ N = N 1 op N 2 }

Another example: constant prop *x := y in out F *x := y (in) = x := *y in out F x := *y (in) =

Another example: constant prop *x := y in out F *x := y (in) = in – { z ! * | z 2 may-point(x) } [ { z ! N | z 2 must-point-to(x) Æ y ! N 2 in } [ { z ! N | (y ! N) 2 in Æ (z ! N) 2 in } x := *y in out F x := *y (in) = in – { x ! * } [ { x ! N | 8 z 2 may-point-to(x). (z ! N) 2 in }

Another example: constant prop x := f(...) in out F x := f(...) (in) = *x := *y + *z in out F *x := *y + *z (in) =

Another example: constant prop x := f(...) in out F x := f(...) (in) = ; *x := *y + *z in out F *x := *y + *z (in) = F a := *y;b := *z;c := a + b; *x := c (in)

Another example: constant prop s: if (...) in out[0]out[1] merge out in[0]in[1]

Lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) =

Lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) = (2 { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z }, ¶, D, ;, Å, [ )

Example x := 5 v := 2 x := x + 1 w := v + 1 w := 3 y := x * 2 z := y + 5 w := w * v

Back to lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) = (2 { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z }, ¶, D, ;, Å, [ ) What’s the problem with this lattice?

Back to lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) = (2 { x ! N | x 2 Vars Æ N 2 Z }, ¶, D, ;, Å, [ ) What’s the problem with this lattice? Lattice is infinitely high, which means we can’t guarantee termination

Better lattice Suppose we only had one variable

Better lattice Suppose we only had one variable D = { ?, > } [ Z 8 i 2 Z. ? v i Æ i v > height = 3

For all variables Two possibilities Option 1: Tuple of lattices Given lattices (D 1, v 1, ? 1, > 1, t 1, u 1 )... (D n, v n, ? n, > n, t n, u n ) create: tuple lattice D n =

For all variables Two possibilities Option 1: Tuple of lattices Given lattices (D 1, v 1, ? 1, > 1, t 1, u 1 )... (D n, v n, ? n, > n, t n, u n ) create: tuple lattice D n = ((D 1 £... £ D n ), v, ?, >, t, u ) where ? = ( ? 1,..., ? n ) > = ( > 1,..., > n ) (a 1,..., a n ) t (b 1,..., b n ) = (a 1 t 1 b 1,..., a n t n b n ) (a 1,..., a n ) u (b 1,..., b n ) = (a 1 u 1 b 1,..., a n u n b n ) height = height(D 1 ) height(D n )

For all variables Option 2: Map from variables to single lattice Given lattice (D, v, ?, >, t, u ) and a set V, create: map lattice V ! D = (V ! D, v, ?, >, t, u )

Back to example x := y op z in out F x := y op z (in) =

Back to example x := y op z in out F x := y op z (in) = in [ x ! in(y) op in(z) ] where a op b =