}
}
-
-% A transformation example
-\definefloat[example][examples]
-\setupcaption[example][location=top] % Put captions on top
-
\define[3]\transexample{
\placeexample[here]{#1}
\startcombination[2*1]
{\example{#3}}{Transformed program}
\stopcombination
}
-%
-%\define[3]\transexampleh{
-%% \placeexample[here]{#1}
-%% \startcombination[1*2]
-%% {\example{#2}}{Original program}
-%% {\example{#3}}{Transformed program}
-%% \stopcombination
-%}
The first step in the core to \small{VHDL} translation process, is normalization. We
aim to bring the core description into a simpler form, which we can
{\boxedgraphic{NormalComplete}}{The architecture described by the normal form.}
\stopcombination
-\subsection{Normal form definition}
+\subsection{Intended normal form definition}
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 completely captures the intended structure (and
(\eg \lam{add} or \lam{sub}). For these, a hardcoded \small{VHDL} translation is
available.
-\subsection{Definitions}
-In the following sections, we will be using a number of functions and
-notations, which we will define here.
-
-\subsubsection{Transformation notation}
+\section{Transformation notation}
To be able to concisely present transformations, we use a specific format to
them. It is a simple format, similar to one used in logic reasoning.
subexpression might open up possibilities to apply the transformation
further up in the expression).
-\subsubsection{Transformation application}
+\subsection{Transformation application}
In this chapter we define a number of transformations, but how will we apply
these? As stated before, our normal form is reached as soon as no
transformation applies anymore. This means our application strategy is to
in a function, not just the top level function. This allows us to keep the
transformation descriptions concise and powerful.
+\subsection{Definitions}
+In the following sections, we will be using a number of functions and
+notations, which we will define here.
+
\subsubsection{Other concepts}
A \emph{global variable} is any variable that is bound at the
-top level of a program, or an external module. A local variable is any other
-variable (\eg, variables local to a function, which can be bound by lambda
-abstractions, let expressions and case expressions).
-
-A \emph{hardware representable} type is a type that we can generate
-a signal for in hardware. For example, a bit, a vector of bits, a 32 bit
-unsigned word, etc. Types that are not runtime representable notably
-include (but are not limited to): Types, dictionaries, functions.
-
-A \emph{builtin function} is a function for which a builtin
-hardware translation is available, because its actual definition is not
-translatable. A user-defined function is any other function.
+top level of a program, or an external module. A \emph{local variable} is any
+other variable (\eg, variables local to a function, which can be bound by
+lambda abstractions, let expressions and pattern matches of case
+alternatives). Note that this is a slightly different notion of global versus
+local than what \small{GHC} uses internally.
+\defref{global variable} \defref{local variable}
+
+A \emph{hardware representable} (or just \emph{representable}) type or value
+is (a value of) a type that we can generate a signal for in hardware. For
+example, a bit, a vector of bits, a 32 bit unsigned word, etc. Types that are
+not runtime representable notably include (but are not limited to): Types,
+dictionaries, functions.
+\defref{representable}
+
+A \emph{builtin 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}
+
+For these functions, Cλash has a \emph{builtin hardware translation}, so calls
+to these functions can still be translated. These are functions like
+\lam{map}, \lam{hwor} and \lam{length}.
+
+A \emph{user-defined} function is a function for which we do have a Cλash
+implementation available.
\subsubsection{Functions}
Here, we define a number of functions that can be used below to concisely
specify conditions.
-\emph{gvar(expr)} is true when \emph{expr} is a variable that references a
+\refdef{global variable}\emph{gvar(expr)} is true when \emph{expr} is a variable that references a
global variable. It is false when it references a local variable.
-\emph{lvar(expr)} is the inverse of \emph{gvar}; it is true when \emph{expr}
+\refdef{local variable}\emph{lvar(expr)} is the complement of \emph{gvar}; it is true when \emph{expr}
references a local variable, false when it references a global variable.
-\emph{representable(expr)} or \emph{representable(var)} is true when
-\emph{expr} or \emph{var} has a type that is representable at runtime.
-
-\section{Transform passes}
-In this section we describe the actual transforms. Here we're using
-the core language in a notation that resembles lambda calculus.
-
-Each of these transforms is meant to be applied to every (sub)expression
-in a program, for as long as it applies. Only when none of the
-transformations can be applied anymore, the program is in normal form (by
-definition). We hope to be able to prove that this form will obey all of the
-constraints defined above, but this has yet to happen (though it seems likely
-that it will).
-
-Each of the transforms will be described informally first, explaining
-the need for and goal of the transform. Then, a formal definition is
-given, using a familiar syntax from the world of logic. Each transform
-is specified as a number of conditions (above the horizontal line) and a
-number of conclusions (below the horizontal line). The details of using
-this notation are still a bit fuzzy, so comments are welcom.
-
-TODO: Formally describe the "apply to every (sub)expression" in terms of
-rules with full transformations in the conditions.
+\refdef{representable}\emph{representable(expr)} or \emph{representable(var)} is true when
+\emph{expr} or \emph{var} is \emph{representable}.
\subsection{Binder uniqueness}
A common problem in transformation systems, is binder uniqueness. When not
either.
\stopitemize
-\subsection{η-abstraction}
-This transformation makes sure that all arguments of a function-typed
-expression are named, by introducing lambda expressions. When combined with
-β-reduction and function inlining below, all function-typed expressions should
-be lambda abstractions or global identifiers.
-
-\starttrans
-E \lam{E :: a -> b}
--------------- \lam{E} is not the first argument of an application.
-λx.E x \lam{E} is not a lambda abstraction.
- \lam{x} is a variable that does not occur free in \lam{E}.
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-foo = λa.case a of
- True -> λb.mul b b
- False -> id
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-foo = λa.λx.(case a of
- True -> λb.mul b b
- False -> λy.id y) x
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{η-abstraction}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Extended β-reduction}
-This transformation is meant to propagate application expressions downwards
-into expressions as far as possible. In lambda calculus, this reduction
-is known as β-reduction, but it is of course only defined for
-applications of lambda abstractions. We extend this reduction to also
-work for the rest of core (case and let expressions).
-
-For let expressions:
-\starttrans
-let binds in E) M
------------------
-let binds in E M
-\stoptrans
-
-For case statements:
-\starttrans
-(case x of
- p1 -> E1
- \vdots
- pn -> En) M
------------------
-case x of
- p1 -> E1 M
- \vdots
- pn -> En M
-\stoptrans
-
-For lambda expressions:
-\starttrans
-(λx.E) M
------------------
-E[M/x]
-\stoptrans
-
-% And an example
-\startbuffer[from]
-( let a = (case x of
- True -> id
- False -> neg
- ) 1
- b = (let y = 3 in add y) 2
- in
- (λz.add 1 z)
-) 3
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-let a = case x of
- True -> id 1
- False -> neg 1
- b = let y = 3 in add y 2
-in
- add 1 3
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Extended β-reduction}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Let derecursification}
-This transformation is meant to make lets non-recursive whenever possible.
-This might allow other optimizations to do their work better. TODO: Why is
-this needed exactly?
-
-\subsection{Let flattening}
-This transformation puts nested lets in the same scope, by lifting the
-binding(s) of the inner let into a new let around the outer let. Eventually,
-this will cause all let bindings to appear in the same scope (they will all be
-in scope for the function return value).
-
-Note that this transformation does not try to be smart when faced with
-recursive lets, it will just leave the lets recursive (possibly joining a
-recursive and non-recursive let into a single recursive let). The let
-rederursification transformation will do this instead.
-
-\starttrans
-letnonrec x = (let bindings in M) in N
-------------------------------------------
-let bindings in (letnonrec x = M) in N
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-letrec
- \vdots
- x = (let bindings in M)
- \vdots
-in
- N
-------------------------------------------
-letrec
- \vdots
- bindings
- x = M
- \vdots
-in
- N
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-let
- a = letrec
- x = 1
- y = 2
- in
- x + y
-in
- letrec
- b = let c = 3 in a + c
- d = 4
- in
- d + b
-\stopbuffer
-\startbuffer[to]
-letrec
- x = 1
- y = 2
-in
- let
- a = x + y
- in
- letrec
- c = 3
- b = a + c
- d = 4
- in
- d + b
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Empty let removal}
-This transformation is simple: It removes recursive lets that have no bindings
-(which usually occurs when let derecursification removes the last binding from
-it).
-
-\starttrans
-letrec in M
---------------
-M
-\stoptrans
-
-\subsection{Simple let binding removal}
-This transformation inlines simple let bindings (\eg a = b).
-
-This transformation is not needed to get into normal form, but makes the
-resulting \small{VHDL} a lot shorter.
-
-\starttrans
-letnonrec
- a = b
-in
- M
------------------
-M[b/a]
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-letrec
- \vdots
- a = b
- \vdots
-in
- M
------------------
-let
- \vdots [b/a]
- \vdots [b/a]
-in
- M[b/a]
-\stoptrans
-
-\subsection{Unused let binding removal}
-This transformation removes let bindings that are never used. Usually,
-the desugarer introduces some unused let bindings.
-
-This normalization pass should really be unneeded to get into normal form
-(since ununsed bindings are not forbidden by the normal form), but in practice
-the desugarer or simplifier emits some unused bindings that cannot be
-normalized (e.g., calls to a \type{PatError} (TODO: Check this name)). Also,
-this transformation makes the resulting \small{VHDL} a lot shorter.
-
-\starttrans
-let a = E in M
----------------------------- \lam{a} does not occur free in \lam{M}
-M
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-letrec
- \vdots
- a = E
- \vdots
-in
- M
----------------------------- \lam{a} does not occur free in \lam{M}
-letrec
- \vdots
- \vdots
-in
- M
-\stoptrans
-
-\subsection{Non-representable binding inlining}
-This transform inlines let bindings that have a non-representable type. Since
-we can never generate a signal assignment for these bindings (we cannot
-declare a signal assignment with a non-representable type, for obvious
-reasons), we have no choice but to inline the binding to remove it.
-
-If the binding is non-representable because it is a lambda abstraction, it is
-likely that it will inlined into an application and β-reduction will remove
-the lambda abstraction and turn it into a representable expression at the
-inline site. The same holds for partial applications, which can be turned into
-full applications by inlining.
-
-Other cases of non-representable bindings we see in practice are primitive
-Haskell types. In most cases, these will not result in a valid normalized
-output, but then the input would have been invalid to start with. There is one
-exception to this: When a builtin function is applied to a non-representable
-expression, things might work out in some cases. For example, when you write a
-literal \hs{SizedInt} in Haskell, like \hs{1 :: SizedInt D8}, this results in
-the following core: \lam{fromInteger (smallInteger 10)}, where for example
-\lam{10 :: GHC.Prim.Int\#} and \lam{smallInteger 10 :: Integer} have
-non-representable types. TODO: This/these paragraph(s) should probably become a
-separate discussion somewhere else.
-
-\starttrans
-letnonrec a = E in M
--------------------------- \lam{E} has a non-representable type.
-M[E/a]
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-letrec
- \vdots
- a = E
- \vdots
-in
- M
--------------------------- \lam{E} has a non-representable type.
-letrec
- \vdots [E/a]
- \vdots [E/a]
-in
- M[E/a]
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-letrec
- a = smallInteger 10
- inc = λa -> add a 1
- inc' = add 1
- x = fromInteger a
-in
- inc (inc' x)
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-letrec
- x = fromInteger (smallInteger 10)
-in
- (λa -> add a 1) (add 1 x)
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Compiler generated top level binding inlining}
-TODO
-
-\subsection{Scrutinee simplification}
-This transform ensures that the scrutinee of a case expression is always
-a simple variable reference.
-
-\starttrans
-case E of
- alts
------------------ \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
-let x = E in
- case E of
- alts
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-case (foo a) of
- True -> a
- False -> b
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-let x = foo a in
- case x of
- True -> a
- False -> b
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
-
-
-\subsection{Case simplification}
-This transformation ensures that all case expressions become normal form. This
-means they will become one of:
-\startitemize
-\item An extractor case with a single alternative that picks a single field
-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}.
-\stopitemize
-
-\starttrans
-case E of
- 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)
-letnonrec
- v0,0 = case x of C0 v0,0 .. v0,m -> v0,0
- \vdots
- v0,m = case x of C0 v0,0 .. v0,m -> v0,m
- x0 = E0
- \dots
- vn,m = case x of Cn vn,0 .. vn,m -> vn,m
- xn = En
-in
- case E of
- C0 w0,0 ... w0,m -> x0
- \vdots
- Cn wn,0 ... wn,m -> xn
-\stoptrans
-
-TODO: This transformation specified like this is complicated and misses
-conditions to prevent looping with itself. Perhaps we should split it here for
-discussion?
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-case a of
- True -> add b 1
- False -> add b 2
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-letnonrec
- x0 = add b 1
- x1 = add b 2
-in
- case a of
- True -> x0
- False -> x1
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Selector case simplification}{from}{to}
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-case a of
- (,) b c -> add b c
-\stopbuffer
-\startbuffer[to]
-letnonrec
- b = case a of (,) b c -> b
- c = case a of (,) b c -> c
- x0 = add b c
-in
- case a of
- (,) w0 w1 -> x0
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Extractor case simplification}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Case removal}
-This transform removes any case statements with a single alternative and
-only wild binders.
-
-These "useless" case statements are usually leftovers from case simplification
-on extractor case (see the previous example).
-
-\starttrans
-case x of
- C v0 ... vm -> E
----------------------- \lam{\forall i, 0 <= i <= m} (\lam{vi} does not occur free in E)
-E
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-case a of
- (,) w0 w1 -> x0
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-x0
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Case removal}{from}{to}
-
-\subsection{Argument simplification}
-The transforms in this section deal with simplifying application
-arguments into normal form. The goal here is to:
-
-\startitemize
- \item Make all arguments of user-defined functions (\eg, of which
- we have a function body) simple variable references of a runtime
- representable type. This is needed, since these applications will be turned
- into component instantiations.
- \item Make all arguments of builtin functions one of:
- \startitemize
- \item A type argument.
- \item A dictionary argument.
- \item A type level expression.
- \item A variable reference of a runtime representable type.
- \item A variable reference or partial application of a function type.
- \stopitemize
-\stopitemize
-
-When looking at the arguments of a user-defined function, we can
-divide them into two categories:
-\startitemize
- \item Arguments of a runtime representable type (\eg bits or vectors).
-
- These arguments can be preserved in the program, since they can
- be translated to input ports later on. However, since we can
- only connect signals to input ports, these arguments must be
- reduced to simple variables (for which signals will be
- produced). This is taken care of by the argument extraction
- transform.
- \item Non-runtime representable typed arguments.
-
- These arguments cannot be preserved in the program, since we
- cannot represent them as input or output ports in the resulting
- \small{VHDL}. To remove them, we create a specialized version of the
- called function with these arguments filled in. This is done by
- the argument propagation transform.
-
- Typically, these arguments are type and dictionary arguments that are
- used to make functions polymorphic. By propagating these arguments, we
- are essentially doing the same which GHC does when it specializes
- functions: Creating multiple variants of the same function, one for
- each type for which it is used. Other common non-representable
- arguments are functions, e.g. when calling a higher order function
- with another function or a lambda abstraction as an argument.
-
- The reason for doing this is similar to the reasoning provided for
- the inlining of non-representable let bindings above. In fact, this
- argument propagation could be viewed as a form of cross-function
- inlining.
-\stopitemize
-
-TODO: Check the following itemization.
-
-When looking at the arguments of a builtin function, we can divide them
-into categories:
-
-\startitemize
- \item Arguments of a runtime representable type.
-
- As we have seen with user-defined functions, these arguments can
- always be reduced to a simple variable reference, by the
- argument extraction transform. Performing this transform for
- builtin functions as well, means that the translation of builtin
- functions can be limited to signal references, instead of
- needing to support all possible expressions.
-
- \item Arguments of a function type.
-
- These arguments are functions passed to higher order builtins,
- like \lam{map} and \lam{foldl}. Since implementing these
- functions for arbitrary function-typed expressions (\eg, lambda
- expressions) is rather comlex, we reduce these arguments to
- (partial applications of) global functions.
-
- We can still support arbitrary expressions from the user code,
- by creating a new global function containing that expression.
- This way, we can simply replace the argument with a reference to
- that new function. However, since the expression can contain any
- number of free variables we also have to include partial
- applications in our normal form.
-
- This category of arguments is handled by the function extraction
- transform.
- \item Other unrepresentable arguments.
-
- These arguments can take a few different forms:
- \startdesc{Type arguments}
- In the core language, type arguments can only take a single
- form: A type wrapped in the Type constructor. Also, there is
- nothing that can be done with type expressions, except for
- applying functions to them, so we can simply leave type
- arguments as they are.
- \stopdesc
- \startdesc{Dictionary arguments}
- In the core language, dictionary arguments are used to find
- operations operating on one of the type arguments (mostly for
- finding class methods). Since we will not actually evaluatie
- the function body for builtin functions and can generate
- code for builtin functions by just looking at the type
- arguments, these arguments can be ignored and left as they
- are.
- \stopdesc
- \startdesc{Type level arguments}
- Sometimes, we want to pass a value to a builtin function, but
- we need to know the value at compile time. Additionally, the
- value has an impact on the type of the function. This is
- encoded using type-level values, where the actual value of the
- argument is not important, but the type encodes some integer,
- for example. Since the value is not important, the actual form
- of the expression does not matter either and we can leave
- these arguments as they are.
- \stopdesc
- \startdesc{Other arguments}
- Technically, there is still a wide array of arguments that can
- be passed, but does not fall into any of the above categories.
- However, none of the supported builtin functions requires such
- an argument. This leaves use with passing unsupported types to
- a function, such as calling \lam{head} on a list of functions.
-
- In these cases, it would be impossible to generate hardware
- for such a function call anyway, so we can ignore these
- arguments.
-
- The only way to generate hardware for builtin functions with
- arguments like these, is to expand the function call into an
- equivalent core expression (\eg, expand map into a series of
- function applications). But for now, we choose to simply not
- support expressions like these.
- \stopdesc
-
- From the above, we can conclude that we can simply ignore these
- other unrepresentable arguments and focus on the first two
- categories instead.
-\stopitemize
-
-\subsubsection{Argument simplification}
-This transform deals with arguments to functions that
-are of a runtime representable type. It ensures that they will all become
-references to global variables, or local signals in the resulting \small{VHDL}.
-
-TODO: It seems we can map an expression to a port, not only a signal.
-Perhaps this makes this transformation not needed?
-TODO: Say something about dataconstructors (without arguments, like True
-or False), which are variable references of a runtime representable
-type, but do not result in a signal.
-
-To reduce a complex expression to a simple variable reference, we create
-a new let expression around the application, which binds the complex
-expression to a new variable. The original function is then applied to
-this variable.
-
-\starttrans
-M N
--------------------- \lam{N} is of a representable type
-let x = N in M x \lam{N} is not a local variable reference
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-add (add a 1) 1
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-let x = add a 1 in add x 1
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Argument extraction}{from}{to}
-
-\subsubsection{Function extraction}
-This transform deals with function-typed arguments to builtin functions.
-Since these arguments cannot be propagated, we choose to extract them
-into a new global function instead.
-
-Any free variables occuring in the extracted arguments will become
-parameters to the new global function. The original argument is replaced
-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
-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.
---------------------- \lam{f0 ... fn} = 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
-x = λf0 ... λfn.N
-\stoptrans
-
-\startbuffer[from]
-map (λa . add a b) xs
-
-map (add b) ys
-\stopbuffer
-
-\startbuffer[to]
-x0 = λb.λa.add a b
-~
-map x0 xs
-
-x1 = λb.add b
-map x1 ys
-\stopbuffer
-
-\transexample{Function extraction}{from}{to}
-
-\subsubsection{Argument propagation}
-This transform deals with arguments to user-defined functions that are
-not representable at runtime. This means these arguments cannot be
-preserved in the final form and most be {\em propagated}.
-
-Propagation means to create a specialized version of the called
-function, with the propagated argument already filled in. As a simple
-example, in the following program:
-
-\startlambda
-f = λa.λb.a + b
-inc = λa.f a 1
-\stoplambda
-
-we could {\em propagate} the constant argument 1, with the following
-result:
-
-\startlambda
-f' = λa.a + 1
-inc = λa.f' a
-\stoplambda
-
-Special care must be taken when the to-be-propagated expression has any
-free variables. If this is the case, the original argument should not be
-removed alltogether, but replaced by all the free variables of the
-expression. In this way, the original expression can still be evaluated
-inside the new function. Also, this brings us closer to our goal: All
-these free variables will be simple variable references.
-
-To prevent us from propagating the same argument over and over, a simple
-local variable reference is not propagated (since is has exactly one
-free variable, itself, we would only replace that argument with itself).
-
-This shows that any free local variables that are not runtime representable
-cannot be brought into normal form by this transform. We rely on an
-inlining transformation to replace such a variable with an expression we
-can propagate again.
-
-\starttrans
-x = E
-~
-x Y0 ... Yi ... Yn \lam{Yi} is not of a runtime representable type
---------------------------------------------- \lam{Yi} is not a local variable reference
-x' y0 ... yi-1 f0 ... fm Yi+1 ... Yn \lam{f0 ... fm} = free local vars of \lam{Yi}
-~
-x' = λy0 ... yi-1 f0 ... fm yi+1 ... yn .
- E y0 ... yi-1 Yi yi+1 ... yn
-
-\stoptrans
-
-TODO: Example
-
-\subsection{Cast propagation / simplification}
-This transform pushes casts down into the expression as far as possible. Since
-its exact role and need is not clear yet, this transformation is not yet
-specified.
-
-\subsection{Return value simplification}
-This transformation ensures that the return value of a function is always a
-simple local variable reference.
-
-Currently implemented using lambda simplification, let simplification, and
-top simplification. Should change into something like the following, which
-works only on the result of a function instead of any subexpression. This is
-achieved by the contexts, like \lam{x = E}, though this is strictly not
-correct (you could read this as "if there is any function \lam{x} that binds
-\lam{E}, any \lam{E} can be transformed, while we only mean the \lam{E} that
-is bound by \lam{x}. This might need some extra notes or something).
-
-\starttrans
-x = E \lam{E} is representable
-~ \lam{E} is not a lambda abstraction
-E \lam{E} is not a let expression
---------------------------- \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
-let x = E in x
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-x = λv0 ... λvn.E
-~ \lam{E} is representable
-E \lam{E} is not a let expression
---------------------------- \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
-let x = E in x
-\stoptrans
-
-\starttrans
-x = λv0 ... λvn.let ... in E
-~ \lam{E} is representable
-E \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
----------------------------
-let x = E in x
-\stoptrans
+\section{Transform passes}
+In this section we describe the actual transforms. Here we're using
+the core language in a notation that resembles lambda calculus.
-\startbuffer[from]
-x = add 1 2
-\stopbuffer
+Each of these transforms is meant to be applied to every (sub)expression
+in a program, for as long as it applies. Only when none of the
+transformations can be applied anymore, the program is in normal form (by
+definition). We hope to be able to prove that this form will obey all of the
+constraints defined above, but this has yet to happen (though it seems likely
+that it will).
-\startbuffer[to]
-x = let x = add 1 2 in x
-\stopbuffer
+Each of the transforms will be described informally first, explaining
+the need for and goal of the transform. Then, a formal definition is
+given, using a familiar syntax from the world of logic. Each transform
+is specified as a number of conditions (above the horizontal line) and a
+number of conclusions (below the horizontal line). The details of using
+this notation are still a bit fuzzy, so comments are welcom.
-\transexample{Return value simplification}{from}{to}
+ \subsection{General cleanup}
+
+ \subsubsection{β-reduction}
+ β-reduction is a well known transformation from lambda calculus, where it is
+ the main reduction step. It reduces applications of labmda abstractions,
+ removing both the lambda abstraction and the application.
+
+ In our transformation system, this step helps to remove unwanted lambda
+ abstractions (basically all but the ones at the top level). Other
+ transformations (application propagation, non-representable inlining) make
+ sure that most lambda abstractions will eventually be reducable by
+ β-reduction.
+
+ TODO: Define substitution syntax
+
+ \starttrans
+ (λx.E) M
+ -----------------
+ E[M/x]
+ \stoptrans
+
+ % And an example
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ (λa. 2 * a) (2 * b)
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ 2 * (2 * b)
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{β-reduction}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Application propagation}
+ This transformation is meant to propagate application expressions downwards
+ into expressions as far as possible. This allows partial applications inside
+ expressions to become fully applied and exposes new transformation
+ possibilities for other transformations (like β-reduction).
+
+ \starttrans
+ let binds in E) M
+ -----------------
+ let binds in E M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ % And an example
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ ( let
+ val = 1
+ in
+ add val
+ ) 3
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ let
+ val = 1
+ in
+ add val 3
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Application propagation for a let expression}{from}{to}
+
+ \starttrans
+ (case x of
+ p1 -> E1
+ \vdots
+ pn -> En) M
+ -----------------
+ case x of
+ p1 -> E1 M
+ \vdots
+ pn -> En M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ % And an example
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ ( case x of
+ True -> id
+ False -> neg
+ ) 1
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ case x of
+ True -> id 1
+ False -> neg 1
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Application propagation for a case expression}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Empty let removal}
+ This transformation is simple: It removes recursive lets that have no bindings
+ (which usually occurs when let derecursification removes the last binding from
+ it).
+
+ \starttrans
+ letrec in M
+ --------------
+ M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \subsubsection{Simple let binding removal}
+ This transformation inlines simple let bindings (\eg a = b).
+
+ This transformation is not needed to get into normal form, but makes the
+ resulting \small{VHDL} a lot shorter.
+
+ \starttrans
+ letnonrec
+ a = b
+ in
+ M
+ -----------------
+ M[b/a]
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ a = b
+ \vdots
+ in
+ M
+ -----------------
+ let
+ \vdots [b/a]
+ \vdots [b/a]
+ in
+ M[b/a]
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \subsubsection{Unused let binding removal}
+ This transformation removes let bindings that are never used. Usually,
+ the desugarer introduces some unused let bindings.
+
+ This normalization pass should really be unneeded to get into normal form
+ (since ununsed bindings are not forbidden by the normal form), but in practice
+ the desugarer or simplifier emits some unused bindings that cannot be
+ normalized (e.g., calls to a \type{PatError} (TODO: Check this name)). Also,
+ this transformation makes the resulting \small{VHDL} a lot shorter.
+
+ \starttrans
+ let a = E in M
+ ---------------------------- \lam{a} does not occur free in \lam{M}
+ M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ a = E
+ \vdots
+ in
+ M
+ ---------------------------- \lam{a} does not occur free in \lam{M}
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ \vdots
+ in
+ M
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \subsubsection{Cast propagation / simplification}
+ This transform pushes casts down into the expression as far as possible.
+ Since its exact role and need is not clear yet, this transformation is
+ not yet specified.
+
+ \subsubsection{Compiler generated top level binding inlining}
+ TODO
+
+ \section{Program structure}
+
+ \subsubsection{η-abstraction}
+ This transformation makes sure that all arguments of a function-typed
+ expression are named, by introducing lambda expressions. When combined with
+ β-reduction and function inlining below, all function-typed expressions should
+ be lambda abstractions or global identifiers.
+
+ \starttrans
+ E \lam{E :: a -> b}
+ -------------- \lam{E} is not the first argument of an application.
+ λx.E x \lam{E} is not a lambda abstraction.
+ \lam{x} is a variable that does not occur free in \lam{E}.
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ foo = λa.case a of
+ True -> λb.mul b b
+ False -> id
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ foo = λa.λx.(case a of
+ True -> λb.mul b b
+ False -> λy.id y) x
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{η-abstraction}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Let derecursification}
+ This transformation is meant to make lets non-recursive whenever possible.
+ This might allow other optimizations to do their work better. TODO: Why is
+ this needed exactly?
+
+ \subsubsection{Let flattening}
+ This transformation puts nested lets in the same scope, by lifting the
+ binding(s) of the inner let into a new let around the outer let. Eventually,
+ this will cause all let bindings to appear in the same scope (they will all be
+ in scope for the function return value).
+
+ Note that this transformation does not try to be smart when faced with
+ recursive lets, it will just leave the lets recursive (possibly joining a
+ recursive and non-recursive let into a single recursive let). The let
+ rederecursification transformation will do this instead.
+
+ \starttrans
+ letnonrec x = (let bindings in M) in N
+ ------------------------------------------
+ let bindings in (letnonrec x = M) in N
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ x = (let bindings in M)
+ \vdots
+ in
+ N
+ ------------------------------------------
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ bindings
+ x = M
+ \vdots
+ in
+ N
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ let
+ a = letrec
+ x = 1
+ y = 2
+ in
+ x + y
+ in
+ letrec
+ b = let c = 3 in a + c
+ d = 4
+ in
+ d + b
+ \stopbuffer
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ letrec
+ x = 1
+ y = 2
+ in
+ let
+ a = x + y
+ in
+ letrec
+ c = 3
+ b = a + c
+ d = 4
+ in
+ d + b
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Return value simplification}
+ This transformation ensures that the return value of a function is always a
+ simple local variable reference.
+
+ Currently implemented using lambda simplification, let simplification, and
+ top simplification. Should change into something like the following, which
+ works only on the result of a function instead of any subexpression. This is
+ achieved by the contexts, like \lam{x = E}, though this is strictly not
+ correct (you could read this as "if there is any function \lam{x} that binds
+ \lam{E}, any \lam{E} can be transformed, while we only mean the \lam{E} that
+ is bound by \lam{x}. This might need some extra notes or something).
+
+ \starttrans
+ x = E \lam{E} is representable
+ ~ \lam{E} is not a lambda abstraction
+ E \lam{E} is not a let expression
+ --------------------------- \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
+ let x = E in x
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ x = λv0 ... λvn.E
+ ~ \lam{E} is representable
+ E \lam{E} is not a let expression
+ --------------------------- \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
+ let x = E in x
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ x = λv0 ... λvn.let ... in E
+ ~ \lam{E} is representable
+ E \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
+ ---------------------------
+ let x = E in x
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ x = add 1 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ x = let x = add 1 2 in x
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Return value simplification}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsection{Argument simplification}
+ The transforms in this section deal with simplifying application
+ arguments into normal form. The goal here is to:
+
+ \startitemize
+ \item Make all arguments of user-defined functions (\eg, of which
+ we have a function body) simple variable references of a runtime
+ representable type. This is needed, since these applications will be turned
+ into component instantiations.
+ \item Make all arguments of builtin functions one of:
+ \startitemize
+ \item A type argument.
+ \item A dictionary argument.
+ \item A type level expression.
+ \item A variable reference of a runtime representable type.
+ \item A variable reference or partial application of a function type.
+ \stopitemize
+ \stopitemize
+
+ When looking at the arguments of a user-defined function, we can
+ divide them into two categories:
+ \startitemize
+ \item Arguments of a runtime representable type (\eg bits or vectors).
+
+ These arguments can be preserved in the program, since they can
+ be translated to input ports later on. However, since we can
+ only connect signals to input ports, these arguments must be
+ reduced to simple variables (for which signals will be
+ produced). This is taken care of by the argument extraction
+ transform.
+ \item Non-runtime representable typed arguments.
+
+ These arguments cannot be preserved in the program, since we
+ cannot represent them as input or output ports in the resulting
+ \small{VHDL}. To remove them, we create a specialized version of the
+ called function with these arguments filled in. This is done by
+ the argument propagation transform.
+
+ Typically, these arguments are type and dictionary arguments that are
+ used to make functions polymorphic. By propagating these arguments, we
+ are essentially doing the same which GHC does when it specializes
+ functions: Creating multiple variants of the same function, one for
+ each type for which it is used. Other common non-representable
+ arguments are functions, e.g. when calling a higher order function
+ with another function or a lambda abstraction as an argument.
+
+ The reason for doing this is similar to the reasoning provided for
+ the inlining of non-representable let bindings above. In fact, this
+ argument propagation could be viewed as a form of cross-function
+ inlining.
+ \stopitemize
+
+ TODO: Check the following itemization.
+
+ When looking at the arguments of a builtin function, we can divide them
+ into categories:
+
+ \startitemize
+ \item Arguments of a runtime representable type.
+
+ As we have seen with user-defined functions, these arguments can
+ always be reduced to a simple variable reference, by the
+ argument extraction transform. Performing this transform for
+ builtin functions as well, means that the translation of builtin
+ functions can be limited to signal references, instead of
+ needing to support all possible expressions.
+
+ \item Arguments of a function type.
+
+ These arguments are functions passed to higher order builtins,
+ like \lam{map} and \lam{foldl}. Since implementing these
+ functions for arbitrary function-typed expressions (\eg, lambda
+ expressions) is rather comlex, we reduce these arguments to
+ (partial applications of) global functions.
+
+ We can still support arbitrary expressions from the user code,
+ by creating a new global function containing that expression.
+ This way, we can simply replace the argument with a reference to
+ that new function. However, since the expression can contain any
+ number of free variables we also have to include partial
+ applications in our normal form.
+
+ This category of arguments is handled by the function extraction
+ transform.
+ \item Other unrepresentable arguments.
+
+ These arguments can take a few different forms:
+ \startdesc{Type arguments}
+ In the core language, type arguments can only take a single
+ form: A type wrapped in the Type constructor. Also, there is
+ nothing that can be done with type expressions, except for
+ applying functions to them, so we can simply leave type
+ arguments as they are.
+ \stopdesc
+ \startdesc{Dictionary arguments}
+ In the core language, dictionary arguments are used to find
+ operations operating on one of the type arguments (mostly for
+ finding class methods). Since we will not actually evaluatie
+ the function body for builtin functions and can generate
+ code for builtin functions by just looking at the type
+ arguments, these arguments can be ignored and left as they
+ are.
+ \stopdesc
+ \startdesc{Type level arguments}
+ Sometimes, we want to pass a value to a builtin function, but
+ we need to know the value at compile time. Additionally, the
+ value has an impact on the type of the function. This is
+ encoded using type-level values, where the actual value of the
+ argument is not important, but the type encodes some integer,
+ for example. Since the value is not important, the actual form
+ of the expression does not matter either and we can leave
+ these arguments as they are.
+ \stopdesc
+ \startdesc{Other arguments}
+ Technically, there is still a wide array of arguments that can
+ be passed, but does not fall into any of the above categories.
+ However, none of the supported builtin functions requires such
+ an argument. This leaves use with passing unsupported types to
+ a function, such as calling \lam{head} on a list of functions.
+
+ In these cases, it would be impossible to generate hardware
+ for such a function call anyway, so we can ignore these
+ arguments.
+
+ The only way to generate hardware for builtin functions with
+ arguments like these, is to expand the function call into an
+ equivalent core expression (\eg, expand map into a series of
+ function applications). But for now, we choose to simply not
+ support expressions like these.
+ \stopdesc
+
+ From the above, we can conclude that we can simply ignore these
+ other unrepresentable arguments and focus on the first two
+ categories instead.
+ \stopitemize
+
+ \subsubsection{Argument simplification}
+ This transform deals with arguments to functions that
+ are of a runtime representable type. It ensures that they will all become
+ references to global variables, or local signals in the resulting \small{VHDL}.
+
+ TODO: It seems we can map an expression to a port, not only a signal.
+ Perhaps this makes this transformation not needed?
+ TODO: Say something about dataconstructors (without arguments, like True
+ or False), which are variable references of a runtime representable
+ type, but do not result in a signal.
+
+ To reduce a complex expression to a simple variable reference, we create
+ a new let expression around the application, which binds the complex
+ expression to a new variable. The original function is then applied to
+ this variable.
+
+ \starttrans
+ M N
+ -------------------- \lam{N} is of a representable type
+ let x = N in M x \lam{N} is not a local variable reference
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ add (add a 1) 1
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ let x = add a 1 in add x 1
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Argument extraction}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Function extraction}
+ This transform deals with function-typed arguments to builtin functions.
+ Since these arguments cannot be propagated, we choose to extract them
+ into a new global function instead.
+
+ Any free variables occuring in the extracted arguments will become
+ parameters to the new global function. The original argument is replaced
+ 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
+ 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.
+ --------------------- \lam{f0 ... fn} = 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
+ x = λf0 ... λfn.N
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ map (λa . add a b) xs
+
+ map (add b) ys
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ x0 = λb.λa.add a b
+ ~
+ map x0 xs
+
+ x1 = λb.add b
+ map x1 ys
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Function extraction}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Argument propagation}
+ This transform deals with arguments to user-defined functions that are
+ not representable at runtime. This means these arguments cannot be
+ preserved in the final form and most be {\em propagated}.
+
+ Propagation means to create a specialized version of the called
+ function, with the propagated argument already filled in. As a simple
+ example, in the following program:
+
+ \startlambda
+ f = λa.λb.a + b
+ inc = λa.f a 1
+ \stoplambda
+
+ we could {\em propagate} the constant argument 1, with the following
+ result:
+
+ \startlambda
+ f' = λa.a + 1
+ inc = λa.f' a
+ \stoplambda
+
+ Special care must be taken when the to-be-propagated expression has any
+ free variables. If this is the case, the original argument should not be
+ removed alltogether, but replaced by all the free variables of the
+ expression. In this way, the original expression can still be evaluated
+ inside the new function. Also, this brings us closer to our goal: All
+ these free variables will be simple variable references.
+
+ To prevent us from propagating the same argument over and over, a simple
+ local variable reference is not propagated (since is has exactly one
+ free variable, itself, we would only replace that argument with itself).
+
+ This shows that any free local variables that are not runtime representable
+ cannot be brought into normal form by this transform. We rely on an
+ inlining transformation to replace such a variable with an expression we
+ can propagate again.
+
+ \starttrans
+ x = E
+ ~
+ x Y0 ... Yi ... Yn \lam{Yi} is not of a runtime representable type
+ --------------------------------------------- \lam{Yi} is not a local variable reference
+ x' y0 ... yi-1 f0 ... fm Yi+1 ... Yn \lam{f0 ... fm} = free local vars of \lam{Yi}
+ ~
+ x' = λy0 ... yi-1 f0 ... fm yi+1 ... yn .
+ E y0 ... yi-1 Yi yi+1 ... yn
+
+ \stoptrans
+
+ TODO: Example
+
+ \subsection{Case simplification}
+ \subsubsection{Scrutinee simplification}
+ This transform ensures that the scrutinee of a case expression is always
+ a simple variable reference.
+
+ \starttrans
+ case E of
+ alts
+ ----------------- \lam{E} is not a local variable reference
+ let x = E in
+ case E of
+ alts
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ case (foo a) of
+ True -> a
+ False -> b
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ let x = foo a in
+ case x of
+ True -> a
+ False -> b
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
+
+
+ \subsubsection{Case simplification}
+ This transformation ensures that all case expressions become normal form. This
+ means they will become one of:
+ \startitemize
+ \item An extractor case with a single alternative that picks a single field
+ 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}.
+ \stopitemize
+
+ \starttrans
+ case E of
+ 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)
+ letnonrec
+ v0,0 = case x of C0 v0,0 .. v0,m -> v0,0
+ \vdots
+ v0,m = case x of C0 v0,0 .. v0,m -> v0,m
+ x0 = E0
+ \dots
+ vn,m = case x of Cn vn,0 .. vn,m -> vn,m
+ xn = En
+ in
+ case E of
+ C0 w0,0 ... w0,m -> x0
+ \vdots
+ Cn wn,0 ... wn,m -> xn
+ \stoptrans
+
+ TODO: This transformation specified like this is complicated and misses
+ conditions to prevent looping with itself. Perhaps we should split it here for
+ discussion?
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ case a of
+ True -> add b 1
+ False -> add b 2
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ letnonrec
+ x0 = add b 1
+ x1 = add b 2
+ in
+ case a of
+ True -> x0
+ False -> x1
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Selector case simplification}{from}{to}
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ case a of
+ (,) b c -> add b c
+ \stopbuffer
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ letnonrec
+ b = case a of (,) b c -> b
+ c = case a of (,) b c -> c
+ x0 = add b c
+ in
+ case a of
+ (,) w0 w1 -> x0
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Extractor case simplification}{from}{to}
+
+ \subsubsection{Case removal}
+ This transform removes any case statements with a single alternative and
+ only wild binders.
+
+ These "useless" case statements are usually leftovers from case simplification
+ on extractor case (see the previous example).
+
+ \starttrans
+ case x of
+ C v0 ... vm -> E
+ ---------------------- \lam{\forall i, 0 <= i <= m} (\lam{vi} does not occur free in E)
+ E
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ case a of
+ (,) w0 w1 -> x0
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ x0
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Case removal}{from}{to}
+
+\subsection{Monomorphisation}
+ TODO: Better name for this section
+
+ Reference type-specialization (== argument propagation)
+
+\subsubsection{Defunctionalization}
+ Reference higher-order-specialization (== argument propagation)
+
+ \subsubsection{Non-representable binding inlining}
+ This transform inlines let bindings that have a non-representable type. Since
+ we can never generate a signal assignment for these bindings (we cannot
+ declare a signal assignment with a non-representable type, for obvious
+ reasons), we have no choice but to inline the binding to remove it.
+
+ If the binding is non-representable because it is a lambda abstraction, it is
+ likely that it will inlined into an application and β-reduction will remove
+ the lambda abstraction and turn it into a representable expression at the
+ inline site. The same holds for partial applications, which can be turned into
+ full applications by inlining.
+
+ Other cases of non-representable bindings we see in practice are primitive
+ Haskell types. In most cases, these will not result in a valid normalized
+ output, but then the input would have been invalid to start with. There is one
+ exception to this: When a builtin function is applied to a non-representable
+ expression, things might work out in some cases. For example, when you write a
+ literal \hs{SizedInt} in Haskell, like \hs{1 :: SizedInt D8}, this results in
+ the following core: \lam{fromInteger (smallInteger 10)}, where for example
+ \lam{10 :: GHC.Prim.Int\#} and \lam{smallInteger 10 :: Integer} have
+ non-representable types. TODO: This/these paragraph(s) should probably become a
+ separate discussion somewhere else.
+
+ \starttrans
+ letnonrec a = E in M
+ -------------------------- \lam{E} has a non-representable type.
+ M[E/a]
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \starttrans
+ letrec
+ \vdots
+ a = E
+ \vdots
+ in
+ M
+ -------------------------- \lam{E} has a non-representable type.
+ letrec
+ \vdots [E/a]
+ \vdots [E/a]
+ in
+ M[E/a]
+ \stoptrans
+
+ \startbuffer[from]
+ letrec
+ a = smallInteger 10
+ inc = λa -> add a 1
+ inc' = add 1
+ x = fromInteger a
+ in
+ inc (inc' x)
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \startbuffer[to]
+ letrec
+ x = fromInteger (smallInteger 10)
+ in
+ (λa -> add a 1) (add 1 x)
+ \stopbuffer
+
+ \transexample{Let flattening}{from}{to}
+
+
+\section{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:
+ \quote{Does our system work as intended?}. We can split this question into a
+ number of subquestions:
+
+ \startitemize[KR]
+ \item[q:termination] Does our system \emph{terminate}? Since our system will
+ keep running as long as transformations apply, there is an obvious risk that
+ it will keep running indefinitely. One transformation produces a result that
+ is transformed back to the original by another transformation, for example.
+ \item[q:soundness] Is our system \emph{sound}? Since our transformations
+ continuously modify the expression, there is an obvious risk that the final
+ normal form will not be equivalent to the original program: Its meaning could
+ have changed.
+ \item[q:completeness] Is our system \emph{complete}? Since we have a complex
+ system of transformations, there is an obvious risk that some expressions will
+ not end up in our intended normal form, because we forgot some transformation.
+ In other words: Does our transformation system result in our intended normal
+ form for all possible inputs?
+ \item[q:determinism] Is our system \emph{deterministic}? Since we have defined
+ no particular order in which the transformation should be applied, there is an
+ obvious risk that different transformation orderings will result in
+ \emph{different} normal forms. They might still both be intended normal forms
+ (if our system is \emph{complete}) and describe correct hardware (if our
+ system is \emph{sound}), so this property is less important than the previous
+ three: The translator would still function properly without it.
+ \stopitemize
+
+ \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.
+
+ \startuseMPgraphic{TransformGraph}
+ save a, b, c, d;
+
+ % Nodes
+ newCircle.a(btex \lam{(λx.λy. (+) x y) 1} etex);
+ newCircle.b(btex \lam{λy. (+) 1 y} etex);
+ newCircle.c(btex \lam{(λx.(+) x) 1} etex);
+ newCircle.d(btex \lam{(+) 1} etex);
+
+ b.c = origin;
+ c.c = b.c + (4cm, 0cm);
+ a.c = midpoint(b.c, c.c) + (0cm, 4cm);
+ d.c = midpoint(b.c, c.c) - (0cm, 3cm);
+
+ % β-conversion between a and b
+ ncarc.a(a)(b) "name(bred)";
+ ObjLabel.a(btex $\xrightarrow[normal]{}{β}$ etex) "labpathname(bred)", "labdir(rt)";
+ ncarc.b(b)(a) "name(bexp)", "linestyle(dashed withdots)";
+ ObjLabel.b(btex $\xleftarrow[normal]{}{β}$ etex) "labpathname(bexp)", "labdir(lft)";
+
+ % η-conversion between a and c
+ ncarc.a(a)(c) "name(ered)";
+ ObjLabel.a(btex $\xrightarrow[normal]{}{η}$ etex) "labpathname(ered)", "labdir(rt)";
+ ncarc.c(c)(a) "name(eexp)", "linestyle(dashed withdots)";
+ ObjLabel.c(btex $\xleftarrow[normal]{}{η}$ etex) "labpathname(eexp)", "labdir(lft)";
+
+ % η-conversion between b and d
+ ncarc.b(b)(d) "name(ered)";
+ ObjLabel.b(btex $\xrightarrow[normal]{}{η}$ etex) "labpathname(ered)", "labdir(rt)";
+ ncarc.d(d)(b) "name(eexp)", "linestyle(dashed withdots)";
+ ObjLabel.d(btex $\xleftarrow[normal]{}{η}$ etex) "labpathname(eexp)", "labdir(lft)";
+
+ % β-conversion between c and d
+ ncarc.c(c)(d) "name(bred)";
+ ObjLabel.c(btex $\xrightarrow[normal]{}{β}$ etex) "labpathname(bred)", "labdir(rt)";
+ ncarc.d(d)(c) "name(bexp)", "linestyle(dashed withdots)";
+ ObjLabel.d(btex $\xleftarrow[normal]{}{β}$ etex) "labpathname(bexp)", "labdir(lft)";
+
+ % Draw objects and lines
+ drawObj(a, b, c, d);
+ \stopuseMPgraphic
+
+ \placeexample[right][ex:TransformGraph]{Partial graph of a labmda calculus
+ 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.
+
+ See \in{example}[ex:TransformGraph] for the graph representation of a very
+ simple lambda calculus that contains just the expressions \lam{(λx.λy. (+) x
+ y) 1}, \lam{λy. (+) 1 y}, \lam{(λx.(+) x) 1} and \lam{(+) 1}. The
+ transformation system consists of β-reduction and η-reduction (solid edges) or
+ β-reduction and η-reduction (dotted edges).
+
+ TODO: Define β-reduction and η-reduction?
+
+ Note that the normal form of such a system consists of the set of nodes
+ (expressions) without outgoing edges, since those are the expression to which
+ no transformation applies anymore. We call this set of nodes the \emph{normal
+ set}.
+
+ 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).
+ \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
+ the normal set are \emph{not} in the intended normal form) is not
+ strictly required.
+ \item A system is deterministic if all paths from a node, which end in a node
+ in the normal set, end at the same node.
+ \stopitemize
+
+ 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 \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.)
+
+ If we would consider the system with both expansion and reduction, there would
+ no longer be termination, since there would be cycles all over the place.
+
+ The reduction and expansion systems have a normal set of containing just
+ \lam{(+) 1} or \lam{(λx.λy. (+) x y) 1} respectively. Since all paths in
+ either system end up in these normal forms, both systems are \emph{complete}.
+ Also, since there is only one normal form, it must obviously be
+ \emph{deterministic} as well.
+
+ \subsection{Termination}
+ Approach: Counting.
+
+ Church-Rosser?
+
+ \subsection{Soundness}
+ Needs formal definition of semantics.
+ Prove for each transformation seperately, implies soundness of the system.
+
+ \subsection{Completeness}
+ Show that any transformation applies to every Core expression that is not
+ in normal form. To prove: no transformation applies => in intended form.
+ Show the reverse: Not in intended form => transformation applies.
+
+ \subsection{Determinism}
+ How to prove this?
projects / matthijs / master-project / report.git / blobdiff