research-article

Staging for generic programming in space and time

Authors:

Georg Ofenbeck,

Markus PüschelAuthors Info & Claims

GPCE 2017: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences

Pages 15 - 28

https://doi.org/10.1145/3136040.3136060

Published: 23 October 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Metaprogramming is among the most promising candidates to solve the abstraction vs performance trade-off that plagues software engineering through specialization. Metaprogramming has been used to enable low-overhead generic programming for a long time, with C++ templates being one of the most prominent examples. But often a single, fixed pattern of specialization is not enough, and more flexibility is needed. Hence, this paper seeks to apply generic programming techniques to challenges in metaprogramming, in particular to abstract over the execution stage of individual program expressions. We thus extend the scope of generic programming into the dimension of time. The resulting notion of stage polymorphism enables novel abstractions in the design of program generators, which we develop and explore in this paper. We present one possible implementation, in Scala using the lightweight modular staging (LMS) framework, and apply it to two important case studies: convolution on images and the fast Fourier transform (FFT).

References

[1]

Nada Amin, Tiark Rompf, and Martin Odersky. 2014. Foundations of path-dependent types. In OOPSLA. ACM, 233-249.

Digital Library

[2]

Olav Beckmann, Alastair Houghton, Michael R. Mellor, and Paul H. J. Kelly. 2003. Runtime Code Generation in C++ as a Foundation for Domain-Specific Optimisation. In Domain-Specific Program Generation. 291-306.

[3]

Julia Belyakova. 2016. Language Support for Generic Programming in Object-Oriented Languages: Peculiarities, Drawbacks, Ways of Improvement. Springer, Cham, 1-15.

[4]

G. Bradski. 2000. Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools (2000).

[5]

Eugene Burmako. 2013. Scala macros: let our powers combine!: on how rich syntax and static types work with metaprogramming. In Proc. Workshop on Scala.

Digital Library

[6]

Jacques Carette, Oleg Kiselyov, and Chung Chieh Shan. 2009. Finally tagless, partially evaluated: Tagless staged interpreters for simpler typed languages. J. Funct. Program. 19, 5 (2009), 509-543.

Digital Library

[7]

K. D. Cooper, M. W. Hall, and K. Kennedy. 1992. Procedure cloning. In Proc. Computer Languages. 96-105.

[8]

Keith D Cooper, MaryWHall, and Ken Kennedy. 1993. A Methodology for Procedure Cloning. Proc. Comput. Lang. 19, 2 (April 1993), 105-117.

Digital Library

[9]

Paolo D'Alberto, Peter A. Milder, Aliaksei Sandryhaila, Franz Franchetti, James C. Hoe, José M. F. Moura, Markus Püschel, and Jeremy Johnson. 2007. Generating FPGA Accelerated DFT Libraries. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM). 173-184.

Digital Library

[10]

Olivier Danvy, Karoline Malmkjær, and Jens Palsberg. 1996. Eta-Expansion Does The Trick. Proc. Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 18, 6 (1996), 730-751.

Digital Library

[11]

M. Frigo. 1999. A Fast Fourier Transform Compiler. In Proc. Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI). 169-180.

Digital Library

[12]

Matteo Frigo and Steven G. Johnson. 2005. The design and implementation of FFTW3. Proceedings of the IEEE, special issue on "Program Generation, Optimization, and Adaptation" 93, 2 (2005), 216-231.

[13]

Ronald Garcia, Jaakko Jarvi, Andrew Lumsdaine, Jeremy G. Siek, and Jeremiah Willcock. 2003. A Comparative Study of Language Support for Generic Programming. In Proc. Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). 115-134.

Digital Library

[14]

Brian Grant, Markus Mock, Matthai Philipose, Craig Chambers, and Susan J. Eggers. 2000. DyC: an expressive annotation-directed dynamic compiler for C. Theor. Comput. Sci. 248, 1-2 (2000), 147-199.

Digital Library

[15]

Douglas Gregor, Jaakko Järvi, Jeremy Siek, Bjarne Stroustrup, Gabriel Dos Reis, and Andrew Lumsdaine. 2006. Concepts: Linguistic Support for Generic Programming in C++. In Proc. Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). 291-310.

Digital Library

[16]

Fritz Henglein and Christian Mossin. 1994. Polymorphic binding-time analysis. In Proc. European Symposium on Programming Edinburg. 287-301.

Digital Library

[17]

Christian Hofer, Klaus Ostermann, Tillmann Rendel, and Adriaan Moors. 2008. Polymorphic embedding of DSLs. In Proc. Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE). 137-148.

Digital Library

[18]

Neil D. Jones, Carsten K. Gomard, and Peter Sestoft. 1993. Partial evaluation and automatic program generation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

Digital Library

[19]

Ulrik Jørring and William L. Scherlis. 1986. Compilers and Staging Transformations. In Proc. Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). 86-96.

Digital Library

[20]

Oleg Kiselyov. 2014. The design and implementation of BER MetaOCaml. In Proc. Symposium on Functional and Logic Programming (ICFP). 86-102.

[21]

Andrei V. Klimov. 2009. A Java Supercompiler and Its Application to Verification of Cache-Coherence Protocols. In Proc. Ershov Memorial Conference. 185-192.

Digital Library

[22]

Ralf Lämmel and Simon L. Peyton Jones. 2003. Scrap your boilerplate: a practical design pattern for generic programming. In Proc. Workshop on Types in languages design and implementation (TLDI). 26-37.

Digital Library

[23]

Ralf Lämmel and Simon L. Peyton Jones. 2005. Scrap your boilerplate with class: extensible generic functions. In Proc. on Functional Programming (ICFP). 204-215.

Digital Library

[24]

Geoffrey Mainland. 2007. Why It's Nice to Be Quoted: Quasiquoting for Haskell. In Proc. Workshop on Haskell Workshop. 73-82.

Digital Library

[25]

David R. Musser and Alexander A. Stepanov. 1988. Generic Programming. In Proc. ISSAC (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 358. Springer, 13-25.

Digital Library

[26]

Martin Odersky and Tiark Rompf. 2014. Unifying functional and object-oriented programming with Scala. Commun. ACM 57, 4 (2014), 76-86.

Digital Library

[27]

Georg Ofenbeck. [n. d.]. https://github.com/GeorgOfenbeck/SpaceTime. ([n. d.]). https://github.com/GeorgOfenbeck/SpaceTime

[28]

Georg Ofenbeck, Tiark Rompf, Alen Stojanov, Martin Odersky, and Markus Püschel. 2013. Spiral in Scala: Towards the Systematic Construction of Generators for Performance Libraries. In Proc. Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE). 125-134.

Digital Library

[29]

Markus Püschel, Franz Franchetti, and Yevgen Voronenko. 2011. Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing. Springer, Chapter Spiral.

[30]

Markus Püschel, José M. F. Moura, Jeremy Johnson, David Padua, Manuela Veloso, Bryan Singer, Jianxin Xiong, Franz Franchetti, Aca Gacic, Yevgen Voronenko, Kang Chen, Robert W. Johnson, and Nicholas Rizzolo. 2005. SPIRAL: Code Generation for DSP Transforms. Proceedings of the IEEE, special issue on "Program Generation, Optimization, and Adaptation" 93, 2 (2005), 232- 275.

[31]

Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, Connelly Barnes, Andrew Adams, Sylvain Paris, Frédo Durand, and Saman Amarasinghe. 2013. Halide: A Language and Compiler for Optimizing Parallelism, Locality, and Recomputation in Image Processing Pipelines. In Proc. Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI). ACM, 519-530.

Digital Library

[32]

Tiark Rompf and Martin Odersky. 2012. Lightweight modular staging: a pragmatic approach to runtime code generation and compiled DSLs. Commun. ACM 55, 6 (2012), 121-130.

Digital Library

[33]

Tiark Rompf, Arvind K. Sujeeth, Kevin J. Brown, HyoukJoong Lee, Hassan Chafi, and Kunle Olukotun. 2014. Surgical precision JIT compilers. In Proc. Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI).

Digital Library

[34]

Henrique Nazare Santos, Pericles Alves, Igor Costa, and Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira. 2013. Just-in-time Value Specialization. In Proc. Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO). 11.

Digital Library

[35]

Ulrik P. Schultz, Julia L. Lawall, and Charles Consel. 2003. Automatic Program Specialization for Java. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 25, 4 (July 2003), 452-499.

Digital Library

[36]

Amin Shali and William R. Cook. 2011. Hybrid partial evaluation. In Proc. Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA).

Digital Library

[37]

Tim Sheard and Simon Peyton Jones. 2002. Template meta-programming for Haskell. In Proc. Workshop on Haskell. 1-16.

Digital Library

[38]

Jeremy G. Siek, Lie-Quan Lee, and Andrew Lumsdaine. 2002. The Boost Graph Library - User Guide and Reference Manual. Pearson / Prentice Hall.

Digital Library

[39]

Alexander Slesarenko. 2012. Lightweight Polytypic Staging: a new approach to an implementation of Nested Data Parallelism in Scala. In Proc. Workshop on Scala (SCALA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 10 pages.

[40]

Alexander Slesarenko, Alexander Filippov, and Alexey Romanov. 2014. First-class Isomorphic Specialization by Staged Evaluation. In Proc. Workshop on Generic Programming (WGP '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 35-46.

Digital Library

[41]

Josef Svenningsson and Emil Axelsson. 2015. Combining deep and shallow embedding of domain-specific languages. Proc. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures 44 (2015), 143-165.

Digital Library

[42]

Wouter Swierstra. 2008. Data types à la carte. Journal of Functional Programming 18, 4 (2008), 423-436.

Digital Library

[43]

Walid Taha. 1999. Multi-stage programming: Its theory and applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology.

Digital Library

[44]

Yevgen Voronenko, Frédéric de Mesmay, and Markus Püschel. 2009. Computer Generation of General Size Linear Transform Libraries. In Proc. Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO). 102-113.

Digital Library

[45]

P. Wadler and S. Blott. 1989. How to Make Ad-hoc Polymorphism Less Ad Hoc. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL '89). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 60-76.

Digital Library

[46]

Piotr Wendykier. 2016. JTransform. (2016). https://sites.google.com/site/piotrwendykier/software/jtransforms

[47]

Jeremy Yallop. 2016. Staging Generic Programming. In Proc. Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation (PEPM '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85-96.

Digital Library

Cited By

Wei GBračevac OTan SRompf T(2020)Compiling symbolic execution with staging and algebraic effectsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282324:OOPSLA(1-33)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428232
Gariano IServetto MPotanin AArora H(2019)Iteratively Composing Statically Verified TraitsElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.299.7299(49-55)Online publication date: 20-Aug-2019
https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.299.7
Wei GChen YRompf T(2019)Staged abstract interpreters: fast and modular whole-program analysis via meta-programmingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33605523:OOPSLA(1-32)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360552
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Staging for generic programming in space and time
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Compilers
      1. Source code generation
    2. General programming languages
      1. Language features
        Polymorphism

Recommendations

Staging for generic programming in space and time
GPCE '17

Metaprogramming is among the most promising candidates to solve the abstraction vs performance trade-off that plagues software engineering through specialization. Metaprogramming has been used to enable low-overhead generic programming for a long time, ...
A comparative study of language support for generic programming
OOPSLA '03: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programing, systems, languages, and applications

Many modern programming languages support basic generic programming, sufficient to implement type-safe polymorphic containers. Some languages have moved beyond this basic support to a broader, more powerful interpretation of generic programming, and ...
A comparative study of language support for generic programming
Special Issue: Proceedings of the OOPSLA '03 conference

Many modern programming languages support basic generic programming, sufficient to implement type-safe polymorphic containers. Some languages have moved beyond this basic support to a broader, more powerful interpretation of generic programming, and ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

GPCE 2017: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences

October 2017

258 pages

ISBN:9781450355247

DOI:10.1145/3136040

General Chair:
Matthew Flatt
University of Utah, USA
,
Program Chair:
Sebastian Erdweg
TU Delft, Netherlands

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 52, Issue 12
GPCE '17
December 2017
258 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/3170492
Editor:
Matthew Fluet
Rodchester Institude of Technology
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

In-Cooperation

SIGAda: ACM Special Interest Group on Ada Programming Language

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 October 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SPLASH '17

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

SPLASH '17: Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity

October 23 - 24, 2017

BC, Vancouver, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 180 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
222
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)24
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wei GBračevac OTan SRompf T(2020)Compiling symbolic execution with staging and algebraic effectsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/34282324:OOPSLA(1-33)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3428232
Gariano IServetto MPotanin AArora H(2019)Iteratively Composing Statically Verified TraitsElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.299.7299(49-55)Online publication date: 20-Aug-2019
https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.299.7
Wei GChen YRompf T(2019)Staged abstract interpreters: fast and modular whole-program analysis via meta-programmingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33605523:OOPSLA(1-32)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360552
Serre FPüschel M(2019)DSL-Based Hardware Generation with ScalaACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems10.1145/335975413:1(1-23)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359754
Stojanov ARompf TPüschel MSchaefer IReichenbach CStorm T(2019)A stage-polymorphic IR for compiling MATLAB-style dynamic tensor expressionsProceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences10.1145/3357765.3359514(34-47)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3357765.3359514
Zuo ZLiu ZWang CYou ZHu Q(2019)Apla Generic Constraint Matching Detection and Verification2019 24th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS)10.1109/ICECCS.2019.00030(210-219)Online publication date: Nov-2019
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCS.2019.00030
Wang FDecker JWu XEssertel GRompf T(2018)Backpropagation with continuation callbacksProceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3327546.3327682(10201-10212)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3327546.3327682
Leißa RBoesche KHack SPérard-Gayot AMembarth RSlusallek PMüller ASchmidt B(2018)AnyDSL: a partial evaluation framework for programming high-performance librariesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32764892:OOPSLA(1-30)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276489
Franchetti FLow TPopovici DVeras RSpampinato DJohnson JPuschel MHoe JMoura J(2018)SPIRAL: Extreme Performance PortabilityProceedings of the IEEE10.1109/JPROC.2018.2873289106:11(1935-1968)Online publication date: Nov-2018
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2873289
Amin NRompf T(2017)Collapsing towers of interpretersProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31581402:POPL(1-33)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3158140
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten