aim to bring the core description into a simpler form, which we can
subsequently translate into \small{VHDL} easily. This normal form is needed because
the full core language is more expressive than \small{VHDL} in some
- areas (higher order expressions, limited polymorphism using type
+ areas (higher-order expressions, limited polymorphism using type
classes, etc.) and because core can describe expressions that do not
have a direct hardware interpretation.
to see if this normal form actually has the properties we would like it to
have.
- But, before getting into more definitions and details about this normal form,
- let's try to get a feeling for it first. The easiest way to do this is by
- describing the things we want to not have in a normal form.
+ But, before getting into more definitions and details about this normal
+ form, let us try to get a feeling for it first. The easiest way to do this
+ is by describing the things that are unwanted in the intended normal form.
\startitemize
\item Any \emph{polymorphism} must be removed. When laying down hardware, we
- can't generate any signals that can have multiple types. All types must be
+ cannot generate any signals that can have multiple types. All types must be
completely known to generate hardware.
- \item All \emph{higher order} constructions must be removed. We can't
+ \item All \emph{higher-order} constructions must be removed. We cannot
generate a hardware signal that contains a function, so all values,
arguments and return values used must be first order.
As a more complete example, consider
\in{example}[ex:NormalComplete]. This example shows everything that
- is allowed in normal form, except for builtin higher order functions
+ is allowed in normal form, except for built-in higher-order functions
(like \lam{map}). The graphical version of the architecture contains
a slightly simplified version, since the state tuple packing and
unpacking have been left out. Instead, two separate registers are
- drawn. Also note that most synthesis tools will further optimize
- this architecture by removing the multiplexers at the register input
- and instead put some gates in front of the register's clock input,
- but we want to show the architecture as close to the description as
- possible.
+ drawn. Most synthesis tools will further optimize this architecture by
+ removing the multiplexers at the register input and instead use the write
+ enable port of the register (when it is available), but we want to show
+ the architecture as close to the description as possible.
As you can see from the previous examples, the generation of the final
architecture from the normal form is straightforward. In each of the
Now we have some intuition for the normal form, we can describe how we want
the normal form to look like in a slightly more formal manner. The following
EBNF-like description captures most of the intended structure (and
- generates a subset of GHC's core format).
+ generates a subset of \GHC's core format).
There are two things missing: Cast expressions are sometimes
allowed by the prototype, but not specified here and the below
- definition allows uses of state that cannot be translated to \VHDL
+ definition allows uses of state that cannot be translated to \VHDL\
properly. These two problems are discussed in
\in{section}[sec:normalization:castproblems] and
\in{section}[sec:normalization:stateproblems] respectively.
\italic{userarg} := var (lvar(var))
\italic{builtinapp} := \italic{builtinfunc}
| \italic{builtinapp} \italic{builtinarg}
- \italic{builtinfunc} := var (bvar(var))
- \italic{builtinarg} := var (representable(var) ∧ lvar(var))
+ \italic{built-infunc} := var (bvar(var))
+ \italic{built-inarg} := var (representable(var) ∧ lvar(var))
| \italic{partapp} (partapp :: a -> b)
| \italic{coreexpr} (¬representable(coreexpr) ∧ ¬(coreexpr :: a -> b))
\italic{partapp} := \italic{userapp}
Most function applications bound by the let expression define a
component instantiation, where the input and output ports are
mapped to local signals or arguments. Some of the others use a
- builtin construction (\eg the \lam{case} expression) or call a
- builtin function (\eg \lam{+} or \lam{map}). For these, a
+ built-in construction (\eg\ the \lam{case} expression) or call a
+ built-in function (\eg\ \lam{+} or \lam{map}). For these, a
hardcoded \small{VHDL} translation is available.
\section[sec:normalization:transformation]{Transformation notation}
~
<original expression>
-------------------------- <expression conditions>
- <transformed expresssion>
+ <transformed expression>
~
<context additions>
\stoptrans
- This format desribes a transformation that applies to \lam{<original
- expresssion>} and transforms it into \lam{<transformed expression>}, assuming
+ This format describes a transformation that applies to \lam{<original
+ expression>} and transforms it into \lam{<transformed expression>}, assuming
that all conditions are satisfied. In this format, there are a number of placeholders
in pointy brackets, most of which should be rather obvious in their meaning.
Nevertheless, we will more precisely specify their meaning below:
against (subexpressions of) the expression to be transformed. We call this a
pattern, because it can contain \emph{placeholders} (variables), which match
any expression or binder. Any such placeholder is said to be \emph{bound} to
- the expression it matches. It is convention to use an uppercase letter (\eg
+ the expression it matches. It is convention to use an uppercase letter (\eg\
\lam{M} or \lam{E}) to refer to any expression (including a simple variable
- reference) and lowercase letters (\eg \lam{v} or \lam{b}) to refer to
+ reference) and lowercase letters (\eg\ \lam{v} or \lam{b}) to refer to
(references to) binders.
For example, the pattern \lam{a + B} will match the expression
To understand this notation better, the step by step application of
the η-abstraction transformation to a simple \small{ALU} will be
- shown. Consider η-abstraction, described using above notation as
- follows:
+ shown. Consider η-abstraction, which is a common transformation from
+ labmda calculus, described using above notation as follows:
\starttrans
E \lam{E :: a -> b}
By now, the placeholder \lam{E} is bound to the entire expression. The
placeholder \lam{x}, which occurs in the replacement template, is not bound
- yet, so we need to generate a fresh binder for that. Let's use the binder
+ yet, so we need to generate a fresh binder for that. Let us use the binder
\lam{a}. This results in the following replacement expression:
\startlambda
\stoplambda
The transformation does not apply to this lambda abstraction, so we
- look at its body. For brevity, we'll put the case expression on one line from
+ look at its body. For brevity, we will put the case expression on one line from
now on.
\startlambda
function position (which makes the second condition false). In the same
way the transformation does not apply to both components of this
expression (\lam{case opcode of Low -> (+); High -> (-)} and \lam{a}), so
- we'll skip to the components of the case expression: The scrutinee and
+ we will skip to the components of the case expression: The scrutinee and
both alternatives. Since the opcode is not a function, it does not apply
here.
lambda abstractions, let expressions and pattern matches of case
alternatives). This is a slightly different notion of global versus
local than what \small{GHC} uses internally, but for our purposes
- the distinction \GHC makes is not useful.
+ the distinction \GHC\ makes is not useful.
\defref{global variable} \defref{local variable}
A \emph{hardware representable} (or just \emph{representable}) type or value
dictionaries, functions.
\defref{representable}
- A \emph{builtin function} is a function supplied by the Cλash framework, whose
+ A \emph{built-in function} is a function supplied by the Cλash framework, whose
implementation is not valid Cλash. The implementation is of course valid
Haskell, for simulation, but it is not expressable in Cλash.
- \defref{builtin function} \defref{user-defined function}
+ \defref{built-in function} \defref{user-defined function}
- For these functions, Cλash has a \emph{builtin hardware translation}, so calls
+ For these functions, Cλash has a \emph{built-in hardware translation}, so calls
to these functions can still be translated. These are functions like
\lam{map}, \lam{hwor} and \lam{length}.
binder uniqueness problems in \small{GHC}.
In our transformation system, maintaining this non-shadowing invariant is
- a bit harder to do (mostly due to implementation issues, the prototype doesn't
- use \small{GHC}'s subsitution code). Also, the following points can be
- observed.
+ a bit harder to do (mostly due to implementation issues, the prototype
+ does not use \small{GHC}'s subsitution code). Also, the following points
+ can be observed.
\startitemize
\item Deshadowing does not guarantee overall uniqueness. For example, the
\transexample{beta-type}{β-reduction for type abstractions}{from}{to}
+ \subsubsection{Unused let binding removal}
+ This transformation removes let bindings that are never used.
+ Occasionally, \GHC's desugarer introduces some unused let bindings.
+
+ This normalization pass should really be not be necessary to get
+ into intended normal form (since the intended normal form
+ definition \refdef{intended normal form definition} does not
+ require that every binding is used), but in practice the
+ desugarer or simplifier emits some bindings that cannot be
+ normalized (e.g., calls to a
+ \hs{Control.Exception.Base.patError}) but are not used anywhere
+ either. To prevent the \VHDL\ generation from breaking on these
+ artifacts, this transformation removes them.
+
+ \todo{Do not use old-style numerals in transformations}
+ \starttrans
+ letrec
+ a0 = E0
+ \vdots
+ ai = Ei
+ \vdots
+ an = En
+ in
+ M \lam{ai} does not occur free in \lam{M}
+ ---------------------------- \lam{\forall j, 0 ≤ j ≤ n, j ≠ i} (\lam{ai} does not occur free in \lam{Ej})
+ letrec
+ a0 = E0
+ \vdots
+ ai-1 = Ei-1
+ ai+1 = Ei+1
+ \vdots
+ an = En
+ in
+ M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ % And an example
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ let
+ x = 1
+ in
+ 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ let
+ in
+ 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{unusedlet}{Unused let binding removal}{from}{to}
+
\subsubsection{Empty let removal}
This transformation is simple: It removes recursive lets that have no bindings
(which usually occurs when unused let binding removal removes the last
M
\stoptrans
- \todo{Example}
+ % And an example
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ let
+ in
+ 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{emptylet}{Empty let removal}{from}{to}
\subsubsection[sec:normalization:simplelet]{Simple let binding removal}
This transformation inlines simple let bindings, that bind some
- binder to some other binder instead of a more complex expression (\ie
+ binder to some other binder instead of a more complex expression (\ie\
a = b).
This transformation is not needed to get an expression into intended
\todo{example}
- \subsubsection{Unused let binding removal}
- This transformation removes let bindings that are never used.
- Occasionally, \GHC's desugarer introduces some unused let bindings.
-
- This normalization pass should really be not be necessary to get
- into intended normal form (since the intended normal form
- definition \refdef{intended normal form definition} does not
- require that every binding is used), but in practice the
- desugarer or simplifier emits some bindings that cannot be
- normalized (e.g., calls to a
- \hs{Control.Exception.Base.patError}) but are not used anywhere
- either. To prevent the \VHDL generation from breaking on these
- artifacts, this transformation removes them.
-
- \todo{Don't use old-style numerals in transformations}
- \starttrans
- letrec
- a0 = E0
- \vdots
- ai = Ei
- \vdots
- an = En
- in
- M \lam{ai} does not occur free in \lam{M}
- ---------------------------- \forall j, 0 ≤ j ≤ n, j ≠ i (\lam{ai} does not occur free in \lam{Ej})
- letrec
- a0 = E0
- \vdots
- ai-1 = Ei-1
- ai+1 = Ei+1
- \vdots
- an = En
- in
- M
- \stoptrans
-
- \todo{Example}
-
\subsubsection{Cast propagation / simplification}
This transform pushes casts down into the expression as far as
possible. This transformation has been added to make a few
Note that this transformation is completely optional. It is not
required to get any function into intended normal form, but it does help making
- the resulting VHDL output easier to read (since it removes a bunch of
- components that are really boring).
+ the resulting VHDL output easier to read (since it removes components
+ that do not add any real structure, but do hide away operations and
+ cause extra clutter).
This transform takes any top level binding generated by \GHC,
whose normalized form contains only a single let binding.
\in{Section}[section:prototype:polymorphism].
Without this transformation, there would be a \lam{(+)} entity
- in the \VHDL which would just add its inputs. This generates a
+ in the \VHDL\ which would just add its inputs. This generates a
lot of overhead in the \VHDL, which is particularly annoying
when browsing the generated RTL schematic (especially since most
non-alphanumerics, like all characters in \lam{(+)}, are not
- allowed in \VHDL architecture names\footnote{Technically, it is
+ allowed in \VHDL\ architecture names\footnote{Technically, it is
allowed to use non-alphanumerics when using extended
identifiers, but it seems that none of the tooling likes
- extended identifiers in filenames, so it effectively doesn't
+ extended identifiers in filenames, so it effectively does not
work.}, so the entity would be called \quote{w7aA7f} or
- something similarly unreadable and autogenerated).
+ something similarly meaningless and autogenerated).
\subsection{Program structure}
These transformations are aimed at normalizing the overall structure
This transformation makes all non-recursive lets recursive. In the
end, we want a single recursive let in our normalized program, so all
non-recursive lets can be converted. This also makes other
- transformations simpler: They can simply assume all lets are
- recursive.
+ transformations simpler: They only need to be specified for recursive
+ let expressions (and simply will not apply to non-recursive let
+ expressions until this transformation has been applied).
\starttrans
let
This transformation ensures that all representable arguments will become
references to local variables. This ensures they will become references
to local signals in the resulting \small{VHDL}, which is required due to
- limitations in the component instantiation code in \VHDL (one can only
+ limitations in the component instantiation code in \VHDL\ (one can only
assign a signal or constant to an input port). By ensuring that all
arguments are always simple variable references, we always have a signal
available to map to the input ports.
function without arguments, but also an argumentless dataconstructors
like \lam{True}) are also simplified. Only local variables generate
signals in the resulting architecture. Even though argumentless
- dataconstructors generate constants in generated \VHDL code and could be
+ dataconstructors generate constants in generated \VHDL\ code and could be
mapped to an input port directly, they are still simplified to make the
normal form more regular.
\transexample{argsimpl}{Argument simplification}{from}{to}
- \subsection[sec:normalization:builtins]{Builtin functions}
- This section deals with (arguments to) builtin functions. In the
+ \subsection[sec:normalization:built-ins]{Built-in functions}
+ This section deals with (arguments to) built-in functions. In the
intended normal form definition\refdef{intended normal form definition}
- we can see that there are three sorts of arguments a builtin function
+ we can see that there are three sorts of arguments a built-in function
can receive.
\startitemize[KR]
common argument to any function. The argument simplification
transformation described in \in{section}[sec:normalization:argsimpl]
makes sure that \emph{any} representable argument to \emph{any}
- function (including builtin functions) is turned into a local variable
+ function (including built-in functions) is turned into a local variable
reference.
- \item (A partial application of) a top level function (either builtin on
+ \item (A partial application of) a top level function (either built-in on
user-defined). The function extraction transformation described in
this section takes care of turning every functiontyped argument into
(a partial application of) a top level function.
transformation needed. Note that this category is exactly all
expressions that are not transformed by the transformations for the
previous two categories. This means that \emph{any} core expression
- that is used as an argument to a builtin function will be either
+ that is used as an argument to a built-in function will be either
transformed into one of the above categories, or end up in this
categorie. In any case, the result is in normal form.
\stopitemize
As noted, the argument simplification will handle any representable
- arguments to a builtin function. The following transformation is needed
+ arguments to a built-in function. The following transformation is needed
to handle non-representable arguments with a function type, all other
- non-representable arguments don't need any special handling.
+ non-representable arguments do not need any special handling.
\subsubsection[sec:normalization:funextract]{Function extraction}
- This transform deals with function-typed arguments to builtin
+ This transform deals with function-typed arguments to built-in
functions.
- Since builtin functions cannot be specialized (see
+ Since built-in functions cannot be specialized (see
\in{section}[sec:normalization:specialize]) to remove the arguments,
these arguments are extracted into a new global function instead. In
other words, we create a new top level function that has exactly the
extracted argument as its body. This greatly simplifies the
- translation rules needed for builtin functions, since they only need
+ translation rules needed for built-in functions, since they only need
to handle (partial applications of) top level functions.
Any free variables occuring in the extracted arguments will become
with a reference to the new function, applied to any free variables from
the original argument.
- This transformation is useful when applying higher order builtin functions
+ This transformation is useful when applying higher-order built-in functions
like \hs{map} to a lambda abstraction, for example. In this case, the code
that generates \small{VHDL} for \hs{map} only needs to handle top level functions and
partial applications, not any other expression (such as lambda abstractions or
even more complicated expressions).
\starttrans
- M N \lam{M} is (a partial aplication of) a builtin function.
+ M N \lam{M} is (a partial aplication of) a built-in function.
--------------------- \lam{f0 ... fn} are all free local variables of \lam{N}
M (x f0 ... fn) \lam{N :: a -> b}
~ \lam{N} is not a (partial application of) a top level function
this.
\subsection{Case normalisation}
+ The transformations in this section ensure that case statements end up
+ in normal form.
+
\subsubsection{Scrutinee simplification}
This transform ensures that the scrutinee of a case expression is always
a simple variable reference.
\transexample{letflat}{Case normalisation}{from}{to}
+ \placeintermezzo{}{
+ \defref{wild binders}
+ \startframedtext[width=7cm,background=box,frame=no]
+ \startalignment[center]
+ {\tfa Wild binders}
+ \stopalignment
+ \blank[medium]
+ In a functional expression, a \emph{wild binder} refers to any
+ binder that is never referenced. This means that even though it
+ will be bound to a particular value, that value is never used.
+
+ The Haskell syntax offers the underscore as a wild binder that
+ cannot even be referenced (It can be seen as introducing a new,
+ anonymous, binder everytime it is used).
+
+ In these transformations, the term wild binder will sometimes be
+ used to indicate that a binder must not be referenced.
+ \stopframedtext
+ }
+
\subsubsection{Case normalization}
This transformation ensures that all case expressions get a form
that is allowed by the intended normal form. This means they
- will become one of: \refdef{intended normal form definition}
+ will become one of:
+
\startitemize
\item An extractor case with a single alternative that picks a field
- from a datatype, \eg \lam{case x of (a, b) -> a}.
+ from a datatype, \eg\ \lam{case x of (a, b) -> a}.
\item A selector case with multiple alternatives and only wild binders, that
makes a choice between expressions based on the constructor of another
- expression, \eg \lam{case x of Low -> a; High -> b}.
+ expression, \eg\ \lam{case x of Low -> a; High -> b}.
\stopitemize
For an arbitrary case, that has \lam{n} alternatives, with
C0 v0,0 ... v0,m -> E0
\vdots
Cn vn,0 ... vn,m -> En
- --------------------------------------------------- \forall i \forall j, 0 ≤ i ≤ n, 0 ≤ i < m (\lam{wi,j} is a wild (unused) binder)
+ --------------------------------------------------- \lam{\forall i \forall j, 0 ≤ i ≤ n, 0 ≤ i < m} (\lam{wi,j} is a wild (unused) binder)
letrec The case expression is not an extractor case
v0,0 = case E of C0 x0,0 .. x0,m -> x0,0 The case expression is not a selector case
\vdots
Cn wn,0 ... wn,m -> yn
\stoptrans
- \refdef{wild binder}
Note that this transformation applies to case expressions with any
scrutinee. If the scrutinee is a complex expression, this might
result in duplication of work (hardware). An extra condition to
\subsubsection[sec:transformation:caseremoval]{Case removal}
This transform removes any case expression with a single alternative and
- only wild binders.\refdef{wild binder}
+ only wild binders.\refdef{wild binders}
These "useless" case expressions are usually leftovers from case simplification
on extractor case (see the previous example).
values used in our expression representable. There are two main
transformations that are applied to \emph{all} unrepresentable let
bindings and function arguments. These are meant to address three
- different kinds of unrepresentable values: Polymorphic values, higher
- order values and literals. The transformation are described generically:
- They apply to all non-representable values. However, non-representable
- values that don't fall into one of these three categories will be moved
- around by these transformations but are unlikely to completely
- disappear. They usually mean the program was not valid in the first
- place, because unsupported types were used (for example, a program using
- strings).
+ different kinds of unrepresentable values: Polymorphic values,
+ higher-order values and literals. The transformation are described
+ generically: They apply to all non-representable values. However,
+ non-representable values that do not fall into one of these three
+ categories will be moved around by these transformations but are
+ unlikely to completely disappear. They usually mean the program was not
+ valid in the first place, because unsupported types were used (for
+ example, a program using strings).
Each of these three categories will be detailed below, followed by the
actual transformations.
take care of exactly this.
There is one case where polymorphism cannot be completely
- removed: Builtin functions are still allowed to be polymorphic
+ removed: Built-in functions are still allowed to be polymorphic
(Since we have no function body that we could properly
- specialize). However, the code that generates \VHDL for builtin
+ specialize). However, the code that generates \VHDL\ for built-in
functions knows how to handle this, so this is not a problem.
- \subsubsection{Defunctionalization}
- These transformations remove higher order expressions from our
- program, making all values first-order.
+ \subsubsection[sec:normalization:defunctionalization]{Defunctionalization}
+ These transformations remove higher-order expressions from our
+ program, making all values first-order. The approach used for
+ defunctionalization uses a combination of specialization, inlining and
+ some cleanup transformations, was also proposed in parallel research
+ by Neil Mitchell \cite[mitchell09].
Higher order values are always introduced by lambda abstractions, none
of the other Core expression elements can introduce a function type.
However, other expressions can \emph{have} a function type, when they
have a lambda expression in their body.
- For example, the following expression is a higher order expression
+ For example, the following expression is a higher-order expression
that is not a lambda expression itself:
\refdef{id function}
\stoplambda
The reference to the \lam{id} function shows that we can introduce a
- higher order expression in our program without using a lambda
+ higher-order expression in our program without using a lambda
expression directly. However, inside the definition of the \lam{id}
function, we can be sure that a lambda expression is present.
Looking closely at the definition of our normal form in
\in{section}[sec:normalization:intendednormalform], we can see that
- there are three possibilities for higher order values to appear in our
+ there are three possibilities for higher-order values to appear in our
intended normal form:
\startitemize[KR]
\item[item:toplambda] Lambda abstractions can appear at the highest level of a
top level function. These lambda abstractions introduce the
arguments (input ports / current state) of the function.
- \item[item:builtinarg] (Partial applications of) top level functions can appear as an
- argument to a builtin function.
+ \item[item:built-inarg] (Partial applications of) top level functions can appear as an
+ argument to a built-in function.
\item[item:completeapp] (Partial applications of) top level functions can appear in
function position of an application. Since a partial application
- cannot appear anywhere else (except as builtin function arguments),
+ cannot appear anywhere else (except as built-in function arguments),
all partial applications are applied, meaning that all applications
will become complete applications. However, since application of
arguments happens one by one, in the expression:
allowed, since it is inside a complete application.
\stopitemize
- We will take a typical function with some higher order values as an
+ We will take a typical function with some higher-order values as an
example. The following function takes two arguments: a \lam{Bit} and a
list of numbers. Depending on the first argument, each number in the
list is doubled, or the list is returned unmodified. For the sake of
High -> λz. z
\stoplambda
- This example shows a number of higher order values that we cannot
- translate to \VHDL directly. The \lam{double} binder bound in the let
+ This example shows a number of higher-order values that we cannot
+ translate to \VHDL\ directly. The \lam{double} binder bound in the let
expression has a function type, as well as both of the alternatives of
the case expression. The first alternative is a partial application of
- the \lam{map} builtin function, whereas the second alternative is a
+ the \lam{map} built-in function, whereas the second alternative is a
lambda abstraction.
- To reduce all higher order values to one of the above items, a number
- of transformations we've already seen are used. The η-abstraction
+ To reduce all higher-order values to one of the above items, a number
+ of transformations we have already seen are used. The η-abstraction
transformation from \in{section}[sec:normalization:eta] ensures all
function arguments are introduced by lambda abstraction on the highest
level of a function. These lambda arguments are allowed because of
High -> (λz. z) q
\stoplambda
- This propagation makes higher order values become applied (in
+ This propagation makes higher-order values become applied (in
particular both of the alternatives of the case now have a
representable type). Completely applied top level functions (like the
first alternative) are now no longer invalid (they fall under
\stoplambda
As you can see in our example, all of this moves applications towards
- the higher order values, but misses higher order functions bound by
+ the higher-order values, but misses higher-order functions bound by
let expressions. The applications cannot be moved towards these values
(since they can be used in multiple places), so the values will have
to be moved towards the applications. This is achieved by inlining all
- higher order values bound by let applications, by the
+ higher-order values bound by let applications, by the
non-representable binding inlining transformation below. When applying
it to our example, we get the following:
High -> q
\stoplambda
- We've nearly eliminated all unsupported higher order values from this
- expressions. The one that's remaining is the first argument to the
- \lam{map} function. Having higher order arguments to a builtin
+ We have nearly eliminated all unsupported higher-order values from this
+ expressions. The one that is remaining is the first argument to the
+ \lam{map} function. Having higher-order arguments to a built-in
function like \lam{map} is allowed in the intended normal form, but
only if the argument is a (partial application) of a top level
function. This is easily done by introducing a new top level function
intended normal form.
There is one case that has not been discussed yet. What if the
- \lam{map} function in the example above was not a builtin function
+ \lam{map} function in the example above was not a built-in function
but a user-defined function? Then extracting the lambda expression
into a new function would not be enough, since user-defined functions
- can never have higher order arguments. For example, the following
+ can never have higher-order arguments. For example, the following
expression shows an example:
\startlambda
This example shows a function \lam{twice} that takes a function as a
first argument and applies that function twice to the second argument.
- Again, we've made the function monomorphic for clarity, even though
+ Again, we have made the function monomorphic for clarity, even though
this function would be a lot more useful if it was polymorphic. The
function \lam{main} uses \lam{twice} to apply a lambda epression twice.
When faced with a user defined function, a body is available for that
function. This means we could create a specialized version of the
- function that only works for this particular higher order argument
+ function that only works for this particular higher-order argument
(\ie, we can just remove the argument and call the specialized
function without the argument). This transformation is detailed below.
Applying this transformation to the example gives:
main = λa.app' a
\stoplambda
- The \lam{main} function is now in normal form, since the only higher
- order value there is the top level lambda expression. The new
- \lam{twice'} function is a bit complex, but the entire original body of
- the original \lam{twice} function is wrapped in a lambda abstraction
- and applied to the argument we've specialized for (\lam{λx. x + x})
- and the other arguments. This complex expression can fortunately be
- effectively reduced by repeatedly applying β-reduction:
+ The \lam{main} function is now in normal form, since the only
+ higher-order value there is the top level lambda expression. The new
+ \lam{twice'} function is a bit complex, but the entire original body
+ of the original \lam{twice} function is wrapped in a lambda
+ abstraction and applied to the argument we have specialized for
+ (\lam{λx. x + x}) and the other arguments. This complex expression can
+ fortunately be effectively reduced by repeatedly applying β-reduction:
\startlambda
twice' :: Word -> Word
representable type: Integer literals. Cλash supports using integer
literals for all three integer types supported (\hs{SizedWord},
\hs{SizedInt} and \hs{RangedWord}). This is implemented using
- Haskell's \hs{Num} typeclass, which offers a \hs{fromInteger} method
+ Haskell's \hs{Num} type class, which offers a \hs{fromInteger} method
that converts any \hs{Integer} to the Cλash datatypes.
- When \GHC sees integer literals, it will automatically insert calls to
+ When \GHC\ sees integer literals, it will automatically insert calls to
the \hs{fromInteger} method in the resulting Core expression. For
example, the following expression in Haskell creates a 32 bit unsigned
word with the value 1. The explicit type signature is needed, since
- there is no context for \GHC to determine the type from otherwise.
+ there is no context for \GHC\ to determine the type from otherwise.
\starthaskell
1 :: SizedWord D32
Both the \lam{GHC.Prim.Int\#} and \lam{Integer} types are not
representable, and cannot be translated directly. Fortunately, there
- is no need to translate them, since \lam{fromInteger} is a builtin
+ is no need to translate them, since \lam{fromInteger} is a built-in
function that knows how to handle these values. However, this does
require that the \lam{fromInteger} function is directly applied to
these non-representable literal values, otherwise errors will occur.
By inlining these let-bindings, we can ensure that unrepresentable
literals bound by a let binding end up in an application of the
- appropriate builtin function, where they are allowed. Since it is
+ appropriate built-in function, where they are allowed. Since it is
possible that the application of that function is in a different
function than the definition of the literal value, we will always need
to specialize away any unrepresentable literals that are used as
but to inline the binding to remove it.
As we have seen in the previous sections, inlining these bindings
- solves (part of) the polymorphism, higher order values and
+ solves (part of) the polymorphism, higher-order values and
unrepresentable literals in an expression.
\refdef{substitution notation}
letrec x = M in E
\stoptrans
- This doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it does get rid of
- the lambda expression (and the associated higher order value), while
+ This does not seem like much of an improvement, but it does get rid of
+ the lambda expression (and the associated higher-order value), while
at the same time introducing a new let binding. Since the result of
every application or case expression must be bound by a let expression
in the intended normal form anyway, this is probably not a problem. If
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
+ 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).
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
+ 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
developed in the final part of the research, leaving no more time
for verifying these properties. In fact, it is likely that the
current transformation system still violates some of these
- properties in some cases and should be improved (or extra conditions
- on the input hardware descriptions should be formulated).
+ properties in some cases (see
+ \in{section}[sec:normalization:non-determinism] and
+ \in{section}[sec:normalization:stateproblems]) and should be improved (or
+ extra conditions on the input hardware descriptions should be formulated).
This is most likely the case with the completeness and determinism
- properties, perhaps als the termination property. The soundness
+ properties, perhaps also the termination property. The soundness
property probably holds, since it is easier to manually verify (each
transformation can be reviewed separately).
possible proof strategies are shown below.
\subsection{Graph representation}
- Before looking into how to prove these properties, we'll look at
+ Before looking into how to prove these properties, we will 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
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.
+ this 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
From such a graph, we can derive some properties easily:
\startitemize[KR]
- \item A system will \emph{terminate} if there is no path of infinite length
- in the graph (this includes cycles, but can also happen without cycles).
+ \item A system will \emph{terminate} if there is no walk (sequence of
+ edges, or transformations) of infinite length in the graph (this
+ includes cycles, but can also happen without cycles).
\item Soundness is not easily represented in the graph.
\item A system is \emph{complete} if all of the nodes in the normal set have
the intended normal form. The inverse (that all of the nodes outside of
When looking at the \in{example}[ex:TransformGraph], we see that the system
terminates for both the reduction and expansion systems (but note that, for
- expansion, this is only true because we've limited the possible
- expressions. In comlete lambda calculus, there would be a path from
+ expansion, this is only true because we have limited the possible
+ expressions. In complete lambda calculus, there would be a path from
\lam{(λx.λy. (+) x y) 1} to \lam{(λx.λy.(λz.(+) z) x y) 1} to
\lam{(λx.λy.(λz.(λq.(+) q) z) x y) 1} etc.)
To be able to formally show that each transformation properly
preserves the meaning of every expression, we require an exact
definition of the \emph{meaning} of every expression, so we can
- compare them. Currently there seems to be no formal definition of
- the meaning or semantics of \GHC's core language, only informal
- descriptions are available.
+ compare them. A definition of the operational semantics of \GHC's Core
+ language is available \cite[sulzmann07], but this does not seem
+ sufficient for our goals (but it is a good start).
It should be possible to have a single formal definition of
- meaning for Core for both normal Core compilation by \GHC and for
+ meaning for Core for both normal Core compilation by \GHC\ and for
our compilation to \VHDL. The main difference seems to be that in
hardware every expression is always evaluated, while in software
it is only evaluated if needed, but it should be possible to
each node in the normal set is also in the intended normal set.
Reasoning about our intended normal set is easier, since we know
how to generate it from its definition. \refdef{intended normal
- form definition}.
+ form definition}
Fortunately, we can also prove the complement (which is
equivalent, since $A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow \overline{B}
This approach is especially useful for proving completeness of our
system, since if expressions exist to which none of the
- transformations apply (\ie if the system is not yet complete), it
+ transformations apply (\ie\ if the system is not yet complete), it
is immediately clear which expressions these are and adding
(or modifying) transformations to fix this should be relatively
easy.
projects / matthijs / master-project / report.git / blobdiff