Search for: All records

In order to generate efficient code, dynamic language compilers often need information, such as dynamic types, not readily available in the program source. Leveraging a mixture of static and dynamic information, these compilers speculate on the missing information. Within one compilation unit, they specialize the generated code to the previously observed behaviors, betting that past is prologue. When speculation fails, the execution must jump back to unoptimized code. In this paper, we propose an approach to further the specialization, by disentangling classes of behaviors into separate optimization units. With contextual dispatch, functions are versioned and each version is compiled under different assumptions. When a function is invoked, the implementation dispatches to a version optimized under assumptions matching the dynamic context of the call. As a proof-of-concept, we describe a compiler for the R language which uses this approach. Our implementation is, on average, 1.7× faster than the GNU R reference implementation. We evaluate contextual dispatch on a set of benchmarks and measure additional speedup, on top of traditional speculation with deoptimization techniques. In this setting contextual dispatch improves the performance of 18 out of 46 programs in our benchmark suite. 

Compiler correctness is an old problem, with results stretching back beyond the last half-century. Founding the field, John McCarthy and James Painter set out to build a completely trustworthy compiler. And yet, until quite recently, even despite truly impressive verification efforts, the theorems being proved were only about the compilation of whole programs, a theoretically quite appealing but practically unrealistic simplification. For a compiler correctness theorem to assure complete trust, the theorem must reflect the reality of how the compiler will be used. There has been much recent work on more realistic compositional compiler correctness aimed at proving correct compilation of components while supporting linking with components compiled from different languages using different compilers. However, the variety of theorems, stated in remarkably different ways, raises questions about what researchers even mean by a compiler is correct. In this pearl, we develop a new framework with which to understand compiler correctness theorems in the presence of linking, and apply it to understanding and comparing this diversity of results. In doing so, not only are we better able to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses, but gain insight into what we as a community should expect from compiler correctness theorems of the future.