D. Tarditi
G. Morrisett
C. Stone
R. Harper
- 1.Shall Aditya, Christine Flood, and James Hicks. Garbage collection for strongly-typed languages using run-time type reconstruction. In LFP '94 {30}, pages 12-23. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.Alfred V. Aho, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.Andrew Appel. A critique of Standard ML. Journal of Functional Programming, 3(4):391-429, October 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 4.Andrew W. Appel. Runtime tags aren't necessary. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, (2):153-162, 1989.Google Scholar
- 5.Andrew W. Appel. Compiling with Continuations. Cambridge University Press, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.Andrew W. Appel, James S. Mattson, and David Tarditi. A lexical analyzer generator for Standard ML. Distributed with Standard ML of New Jersey, 1989.Google Scholar
- 7.Edoardo Biagioni, Robert Harper, Peter Lee, and Brian Milnes. Signatures for a network protocol stack: A systems application of Standard ML. In LFP '94 {30}, pages 55-64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.Lars Birkedal, Nick Rothwell, Mads Tofte, and David N. Turner. The ML Kit, Version 1. Technical Report 93/14, DIKU, 1993.Google Scholar
- 9.Guy E. Blelloch. NESL: A nested data-parallel language (version 2.6). Technical Report CMU-CS-93-129, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 10.Hans-Juergen Boehm. Space-efficient conservative garbage collection. In PLDI '93 {36}, pages 197-206. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.P. Branquart and J. Lewi. A scheme for storage allocation and garbage collection for Algol-68. in Algol-68 Implementation. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1970.Google Scholar
- 12.Dianne Ellen Britton. Heap storage management for the programming language Pascal. Master's thesis, University of Arizona, 1975.Google Scholar
- 13.Fred C. Chow. Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure calls. In Proceedings of the A CM SIGPLAN '88 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 85-94, Atlanta, Georgia, June 1988. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.A. Demers, M. Weiser, B. Hayes, H. Boehm, D. Bobrow, and S. Shenker. Combining generational and conservative garbage colIection: Framework and implementations. In Conference Record of the 17th Annual A CM SIGPLAN- SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Francisco, California, January 1990. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15.Amer Diwan, Eliot Moss, and Richard Hudson. Compiler support for garbage collection in a statically typed language. In Proceedings of the A CM $IGPLAN '92 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 273-282, San Francisco, CA, June 1992. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.Amer Diwan, David Tarditi, and Eliot Moss. Memory- System Performance of Programs with intensive Heap Allocation. Transactions on Computer Systems, August 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.K. Ekanadham and Arvind. SIMPLE: An exercise in future scientific programming. Technical Report Computation Structures Group Memo 273, MIT, Cb. mbridge, MA, July 1987. Simultaneously published as IBM/T. J. Watson Research Center Research Report 12686, Yorktown Heights, NY.Google Scholar
- 18.Cormac Flanagan, Amr Sabry, Bruce F. Dubs, and Matthias Felleisen. The essence of compiling with continuations. In PLDI '93 {36}, pages 237-247. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19.Benjamin Goldberg. Tag-free garbage collection in strongly typed programming languages. In Proceedings of the A CM $IGPLAN '9I Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 165-176, Toronto, Canada, June 1991. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.Benjamin Goldberg and Michael Gloger. Polymorphic type reconstruction for garbage collection without tags. In Proceedings of the 1992 A CM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, pages 53-435, San Francisco, California, June 1992. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.Cordelia Hall, Simon L. Peyton Jones, and Patrick M. Sansore. Unboxing using specialisation. In D. Turner K. Hammond, P.M. Sandom, editor, Functional Programming, 199J. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
- 22.Robert Harper and Mark LilIibridge. A type-theoretic approach to higher-order modules with sharing. In POPL '94 {37}, pages 123-137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.Robert Harper and Greg Morrisett. Comc)iling polymorphism using intensional type analysis. In Conference Record of the ~~nd Annual A CM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 130-141, San Francisco, California, January 1995. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24.Fritz Henglein and Jesper JCrgensen. Formally optimal boxing. In POPL '94 {37}, pages 213-226. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 25.M.P. Jones. Partial evaluation for dictionary-free overloading. Research Report YALEU/DCS/RR-959, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, April 1993.Google Scholar
- 26.Simon Peyton jones and John Launchbury. Unboxed values as first-class citizens. In Proceedings of the Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, volume 523 of Lecture Notes on Computer Science, pages 636- 666. ACM, Springer-Verlag, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 27.David Kranz, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Rees, Paul Hudak, James Phitbin, and Norman Adams. ORBIT: An Optimizing Compiler for Scheme. in Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '86 Symposium on Compiler Construction, pages 219-233, Palo Alto, California, June 1986. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 28.Xavier Leroy. Unboxed objects and polymorphic typing. in Conference t~ecord of the 19th Annual A CM SIGPLAN- $IGA CT Symposium or, Principles of Programming Languages, pages 177-188, Albuquerque, NM, January 1992. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 29.Xavier Leroy. Manifest types, modules, and separate compilation. In POPL '94 {37}, pages 109-122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 30.Proceedings of the 199J ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, Orlando, Florida, June 1994. ACM.Google Scholar
- 31.Robin Milner, Mads Torte, and Robert Harper. The Definition of Standard ML. MIT Press, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 32.Y. Minamide, G. Morrisett, and R. Harper. Typed closure conversion. In Conference Record of the 23rd Annual A CM SIGPLAN-SIGA CT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, St. Petersburg, Florida, January 1996. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 33.Greg Morrisett. Compiling with Types. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, December 1995. Published as Technical Report CMU- CS-95-226.Google Scholar
- 34.Greg Morrisett, Matthias Felleisen, and Robert Harper. Abstract models of memory management. In A CM Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 66-77, La Jolla, June 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 35.R. Morrison, A. Dearle, R. C. H, Connor, and A, L, Brown. An ad hoc approach ~o ~he implementation of polymorphlsm. A CM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(3):342-371, July 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 36.Proceedings of the A CM SiGPLAN '93 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1993. ACM.Google Scholar
- 37.ConJerence Record of the 21st Annual A CM SIGPLAN- SiGA CT Symposium or, Principles of Programming Languages, Portland, Oregon, January 1994. ACM.Google Scholar
- 38.Eigil Rosager Poulsen. Representation analysis for efficient implementation of polymorphism. Technical report, Department of Computer Science (DIKU), University of Copenhagen, April 1993. Master Dissertation.Google Scholar
- 39.Chris Reade. Elements of Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 40.Manual Serrano and Pierre Weis. 1+ 1 = 1: an optimizing CAML compiler. Technical Report 2264, INRIA, June 1994.Google Scholar
- 41.Zhong Shao. Compiling Standard ML for Efficient Execution on Modern Machines. PhD thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, November 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 42.Zhong Shao and Andrew W. Appel. A type-based compiler for Standard ML. In Proceedings of the A CM SIGPLAN '95 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 116-129, La Jolla, California, June 1994. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 43.Peter Steenkiste. Advanced register allocation. In Peter Lee, editor, Topics in Advanced Language Implementation. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- 44.Bjarne Stroustrup. The C-k4- Programming Language~ 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 45.David R. Tarditi. Optimizing ML. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 46.Andrew Tolmach. Tag-free garbage collection using explicit type parameters. In LFP '94 {30}, pages 1-11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 47.Kevin G. Waugh, Patrick McAndrew, and Greg Michaelson. Parallel implementations from function prototypes: a case study. Technical Report Computer Science 90/4, Heriot- Watt University, Edinburgh, August 1990.Google Scholar
- 48.P.L. Wodon. Methods of garbage collection for Algol-68. In Algol-68 Implementation. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1970.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- TIL: a type-directed optimizing compiler for ML
Recommendations
Layout-sensitive language extensibility with SugarHaskell
Haskell '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Haskell SymposiumProgrammers need convenient syntax to write elegant and concise programs. Consequently, the Haskell standard provides syntactic sugar for some scenarios (e.g., do notation for monadic code), authors of Haskell compilers provide syntactic sugar for more ...
Layout-sensitive language extensibility with SugarHaskell
Haskell '12Programmers need convenient syntax to write elegant and concise programs. Consequently, the Haskell standard provides syntactic sugar for some scenarios (e.g., do notation for monadic code), authors of Haskell compilers provide syntactic sugar for more ...
Cedalion: a language for language oriented programming
OOPSLA '11Language Oriented Programming (LOP) is a paradigm that puts domain specific programming languages (DSLs) at the center of the software development process. Currently, there are three main approaches to LOP: (1) the use of internal DSLs, implemented as ...
Comments