From: Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs@stdin.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:37:34 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: Make a start with the prototype chapter.
X-Git-Tag: final-thesis~249
X-Git-Url: https://git.stderr.nl/gitweb?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d13b2459ebafe1cdeef354cc4e4f28ca9d7c3a83;p=matthijs%2Fmaster-project%2Freport.git

Make a start with the prototype chapter.
---

diff --git a/Chapters/Prototype.tex b/Chapters/Prototype.tex
index 1db9c6d..64fbbe7 100644
--- a/Chapters/Prototype.tex
+++ b/Chapters/Prototype.tex
@@ -1,5 +1,87 @@
 \chapter{Prototype}
-        Choice of Haskell
+  An important step in this research is the creation of a prototype compiler.
+  Having this prototype allows us to apply the ideas from the previous chapter
+  to actual hardware descriptions and evaluate their usefulness. Having a
+  prototype also helps to find new techniques and test possible
+  interpretations.
+
+  Obviously the prototype was not created after all research
+  ideas were formed, but its implementation has been interleaved with the
+  research itself. Also, the prototype described here is the final version, it
+  has gone through a number of design iterations which we will not completely
+  describe here.
+
+  \section{Choice of language}
+    When implementing this prototype, the first question to ask is: What
+    (functional) language will we use to describe our hardware? (Note that
+    this does not concern the \emph{implementation language} of the compiler,
+    just the language \emph{translated by} the compiler).
+
+    On the highest level, we have two choices:
+
+    \startitemize
+      \item Create a new functional language from scratch. This has the
+      advantage of having a language that contains exactly those elements that
+      are convenient for describing hardware and can contain special
+      constructs that might.
+      \item Use an existing language and create a new backend for it. This has
+      the advantage that existing tools can be reused, which will speed up
+      development.
+    \stopitemize
+
+    Considering that we required a prototype which should be working quickly,
+    and that implementing parsers, semantic checkers and especially
+    typcheckers isn't exactly the core of this research (but it is lots and
+    lots of work!), using an existing language is the obvious choice. This
+    also has the advantage that a large set of language features is available
+    to experiment with and it is easy to find which features apply well and
+    which don't. A possible second prototype could use a custom language with
+    just the useful features (and possibly extra features that are specific to
+    the domain of hardware description as well).
+
+    The second choice is to pick one of the many existing languages. As
+    mentioned before, this language is Haskell.  This choice has not been the
+    result of a thorough comparison of languages, for the simple reason that
+    the requirements on the language were completely unclear at the start of
+    this language. The fact that Haskell is a language with a broad spectrum
+    of features, that it is commonly used in research projects and that the
+    primary compiler, GHC, provides a high level API to its internals, made
+    Haskell an obvious choice.
+
+    TODO: Was Haskell really a good choice? Perhaps say this somewhere else?
+
+  \section{Prototype design}
+    As stated above, we will use the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (\small{GHC}) to
+    implement our prototype compiler. To understand the design of the
+    compiler, we will first dive into the \small{GHC} compiler a bit. It's
+    compilation consists of the following steps (slightly simplified):
+
+    \startdesc{Frontend}
+      This step takes the Haskell source files and parses them into an
+      abstract syntax tree (\small{AST}). This \small{AST} can express the
+      complete Haskell language and is thus a very complex one (in contrast
+      with the Core \small{AST}, later on). All identifiers in this
+      \small{AST} are resolved by the renamer and all types are checked by the
+      typechecker.
+    \stopdesc
+    \startdesc{Desugaring}
+      This steps takes the full \small{AST} and translates it to the
+      \emph{Core} language. Core is a very small functional language with lazy
+      semantics, that can still express everything Haskell can express. Its
+      simpleness makes Core very suitable for further simplification and
+      translation. Core is the language we will be working on as well.
+    \stopdesc
+    \startdesc{Simplification}
+      Through a number of simplification steps (such as inlining, common
+      subexpression elimination, etc.) the Core program is simplified to make
+      it faster or easier to process further.
+    \stopdesc
+    \startdesc{Backend}
+      This step takes the simplified Core program and generates an actual
+      runnable program for it. This is a big and complicated step we will not
+      discuss it any further, since it is not required for our prototype.
+    \stopdesc
+
         Core - description of the language (appendix?)
 	Stages (-> Core, Normalization, -> VHDL)
         Implementation issues