Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The costs and benefits of abstract interpretation-driven Prolog optimization

  • Invited Talk
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Static Analysis (SAS 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 864))

Included in the following conference series:

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Bruynooghe, G. Janssens, Alain Callebaut, and B. Demoen. Abstract Interpretation: Towards the Global Optimisation of Prolog Programs. In 1987 IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 192–204, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Bruynooghe and G. Janssens. An Instance of Abstract Interpretation Integrating Type and Mode Inferencing. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, pp. 669–683, August 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Bruynooghe. A Frameworkfor the Abstract Interpretation of Logic Programs. Report CW 62, Dept. of Computer Science, K.U. Leuven, October 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Chang and A. Despain. Semi-Intelligent Backtracking of Prolog Based on A Static Data Dependency Analysis. In Logic Programming conference, July 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. Citrin. Parallel Unification Scheduling in Prolog. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Report UCB/CSD #88/415, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Cortesi, G. File, and W. Winsborough. Comparison of Abstract Interpretations. Internal report 14 — 18.11.1991. Departmento di Matematica. November 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation: A Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In 4th ACM POPL, pp. 238–252, June 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation and Application to Logic Programs. Research Report 92-12, LIENS Laboratoire d'Informatique de l'Ecole Normale Superieure, June 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Debray and D. S. Warren. Detection and Optimization of Functional Computations in Prolog. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 490–504. July 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Debray and D. S. Warren. Automatic Mode Inference for Prolog Programs. In IEEE 1986 Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 78–88, September 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Dietrich. Extension Tables: Memo Relations in Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 264–272. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. Holmer, et al. Fast Prolog with an Extended General Purpose Architecture. In The 17th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture Conference Proceedings, pp. 282–291, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. Getzinger. Abstract Interpretation for the Compile-time Optimization of Logic Programs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, December 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Gudjonsson and W. Winsborough. Update in Place: Overview of the Siva Project. Technical Report CS-93-11, Pennsylvania State University, May 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. Jacobs and A. Langen. Accurate and Efficient Approximation of Variable Aliasing in Logic Programs. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the North American Conference 1989, pp. 154–165, October 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D.Jacobs. A Framework for the Abstract Interpretation of Logic Programs. (Unpublished). October 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Janssens and M. Bruynooghe. Deriving descriptions of possible values of program variables by means of abstract interpretation. Report CW 107, Department of Computer Science, K. U. Leuven. March 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Janssens and M. Bruynooghe. Deriving descriptions of possible values of program variables by means of abstract interpretation: definitions and proofs. Report CW 108, Department of Computer Science, K. U. Leuven. April 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  19. N. Jones and H. Søndergaard. A Semantics-Based Framework for the Abstract Interpretation of Prolog. Report No. 86/14, Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Kemp and G. Ringwood. An Algebraic Framework for Abstract Interpretation of Definite Programs. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming '90, pp. 516–530, October 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  21. F. Kluzniak. Compile Time Garbage Collection for Ground Prolog. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, pp. 1490–1505, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Langen. Advanced Techniques for Approximating Variable Aliasing in Logic Programs. PhD Thesis. University of Southern California. December 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. Le Charlier and P. Van Hentenryck. Experimental Evaluation of a Generic Abstract Interpretation Algorithm for Prolog. Technical Report No. CS-91-55, Brown University, August 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  24. B. Le Charlier, K. Musumbu, and P. Van Hentenryck. Efficient and Accurate Algorithms for the Abstract Interpretation of Prolog Programs. Research Paper No. RP-90/9, University of Namur, Belgium, August 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. B. Le Charlier and P. Van Hentenryck. Reexecution in Abstract Interpretation of Prolog. Technical Report No. CS-92-12, Brown University. March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. Marien and B. Demoen. On the Management of Choicepoint and Environment Frames in the WAM. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the North American Conference 1989, pp. 1030–1047, October 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Marien, G. Janssens, A. Mulkers, and M. Bruynooghe. The impact of abstract interpretation: an experiment in code generation. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, pp. 33–47, June 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  29. K. Marriott and H. Søndergaard. Analysis of Constraint Logic Programs. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming '90, pp. 531–547, October 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  30. H. Mannila and E. Ukkonen. Flow Analysis of Prolog Programs. In 1987 IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 205–214, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Meier. Recursion vs. Iteration in Prolog. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 157–169, June 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. Mellish. Automatic Generation of Mode Declarations for Prolog Programs (Draft). DAI Research Paper 163, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, August 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  33. C. Mellish. Abstract Interpretation of Prolog Programs. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 463–474, July 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  34. C. Mellish. Some Global Optimizations for a Prolog Compiler. In Journal of Logic Programming, Vol 2, pp. 43–66, April 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. K. Muthukumar and M. Hermenegildo. Determination of Variable Dependence Information Through Abstract Interpretation. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming '89, pp. 166–185, August 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  36. U. Nilsson. Towards a Framework for the Abstract Interpretation of Logic Programs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 348 (Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming International Workshop '88), pp. 68–82, May 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  37. T. Pabst, Dataflow Analysis and Modular Logic Programs. Diplomarbeit, TU-Berlin, November 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. Tan and I. Lin. Compiling Dataflow Analysis of Logic Programs. (Unpublished) 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  39. A. Taylor. Removal of Dereferencing and Trailing in Prolog Compilation. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, pp. 48–60, June 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  40. A. Taylor. High Performance Prolog Implementation. PhD Thesis. University of Sydney, June 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  41. H. Touati and A. Despain. An empirical study of the Warren Abstract Machine. In Proceedings of the 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 114–124. San Francisco 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  42. P. Van Roy. Can Logic Programming Execute as Fast as Imperative Programming?. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Report UCB/CSD#90/600, December 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Van Roy and A. Despain. High-Performance Logic Programming with the Aquarius Prolog Compiler. In Computer, pp. 54–68, January 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  44. A. Wærn. An Implementation Technique for the Abstract Interpretation of Prolog. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, pp. 700–710, August 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hughes Aircraft Company, 92634, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Thomas W. Getzinger

Authors
  1. Thomas W. Getzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Baudouin Le Charlier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Getzinger, T.W. (1994). The costs and benefits of abstract interpretation-driven Prolog optimization. In: Le Charlier, B. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 864. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58485-4_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58485-4_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58485-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49005-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation