transformations will probably need updating to handle them in all
cases.
+ \subsection[sec:normalization:stateproblems]{Normalization of stateful descriptions}
+ Currently, the intended normal form definition\refdef{intended
+ normal form definition} offers enough freedom to describe all
+ valid stateful descriptions, but is not limiting enough. It is
+ possible to write descriptions which are in intended normal
+ form, but cannot be translated into \VHDL in a meaningful way
+ (\eg, a function that swaps two substates in its result, or a
+ function that changes a substate itself instead of passing it to
+ a subfunction).
+
+ It is now up to the programmer to not do anything funny with
+ these state values, whereas the normalization just tries not to
+ mess up the flow of state values. In practice, there are
+ situations where a Core program that \emph{could} be a valid
+ stateful description is not translateable by the prototype. This
+ most often happens when statefulness is mixed with pattern
+ matching, causing a state input to be unpacked multiple times or
+ be unpacked and repacked only in some of the code paths.
+
+ Without going into detail about the exact problems (of which
+ there are probably more than have shown up so far), it seems
+ unlikely that these problems can be solved entirely by just
+ improving the \VHDL state generation in the final stage. The
+ normalization stage seems the best place to apply the rewriting
+ needed to support more complex stateful descriptions. This does
+ of course mean that the intended normal form definition must be
+ extended as well to be more specific about how state handling
+ should look like in normal form.
+ \in{Section}[sec:prototype:statelimits] already contains a
+ tight description of the limitations on the use of state
+ variables, which could be adapted into the intended normal form.
+
\section[sec:normalization:properties]{Provable properties}
When looking at the system of transformations outlined above, there are a
number of questions that we can ask ourselves. The main question is of course:
possible proof strategies are shown below.
\subsection{Graph representation}
- Before looking into how to prove these properties, we'll look at our
- transformation system from a graph perspective. The nodes of the graph are
- all possible Core expressions. The (directed) edges of the graph are
- transformations. When a transformation α applies to an expression \lam{A} to
- produce an expression \lam{B}, we add an edge from the node for \lam{A} to the
- node for \lam{B}, labeled α.
+ Before looking into how to prove these properties, we'll look at
+ transformation systems from a graph perspective. We will first define
+ the graph view and then illustrate it using a simple example from lambda
+ calculus (which is a different system than the Cλash normalization
+ system). The nodes of the graph are all possible Core expressions. The
+ (directed) edges of the graph are transformations. When a transformation
+ α applies to an expression \lam{A} to produce an expression \lam{B}, we
+ add an edge from the node for \lam{A} to the node for \lam{B}, labeled
+ α.
\startuseMPgraphic{TransformGraph}
save a, b, c, d;
system with β and η reduction (solid lines) and expansion (dotted lines).}
\boxedgraphic{TransformGraph}
- Of course our graph is unbounded, since we can construct an infinite amount of
- Core expressions. Also, there might potentially be multiple edges between two
- given nodes (with different labels), though seems unlikely to actually happen
- in our system.
+ Of course the graph for Cλash is unbounded, since we can construct an
+ infinite amount of Core expressions. Also, there might potentially be
+ multiple edges between two given nodes (with different labels), though
+ seems unlikely to actually happen in our system.
See \in{example}[ex:TransformGraph] for the graph representation of a very
simple lambda calculus that contains just the expressions \lam{(λx.λy. (+) x
Also, since there is only one node in the normal set, it must obviously be
\emph{deterministic} as well.
- \todo{Add content to these sections}
\subsection{Termination}
In general, proving termination of an arbitrary program is a very
hard problem. \todo{Ref about arbitrary termination} Fortunately,
projects / matthijs / master-project / report.git / blobdiff