Spelling suggestions: "subject:"programming languages"" "subject:"programming ianguages""
11 |
Design and implementation of a simple table driven compilerCrank, Robert D January 2010 (has links)
Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries
|
12 |
Recognition of identical stubs in a decision table processorLu, Chi-Dong January 2010 (has links)
Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries
|
13 |
A comparative study of high level microprogramming languagesSchreiner, Eugene January 2010 (has links)
Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries
|
14 |
Formal verification-driven parallelisation synthesisBotinčan, Matko January 2018 (has links)
Concurrency is often an optimisation, rather than intrinsic to the functional behaviour of a program, i.e., a concurrent program is often intended to achieve the same effect of a simpler sequential counterpart, just faster. Error-free concurrent programming remains a tricky problem, beyond the capabilities of most programmers. Consequently, an attractive alternative to manually developing a concurrent program is to automatically synthesise one. This dissertation presents two novel formal verification-based methods for safely transforming a sequential program into a concurrent one. The first method---an instance of proof-directed synthesis---takes as the input a sequential program and its safety proof, as well as annotations on where to parallelise, and produces a correctly-synchronised parallelised program, along with a proof of that program. The method uses the sequential proof to guide the insertion of synchronisation barriers to ensure that the parallelised program has the same behaviour as the original sequential version. The sequential proof, written in separation logic, need only represent shape properties, meaning we can parallelise complex heap-manipulating programs without verifying every aspect of their behaviour. The second method proposes specification-directed synthesis: given a sequential program, we extract a rich, stateful specification compactly summarising program behaviour, and use that specification for parallelisation. At the heart of the method is a learning algorithm which combines dynamic and static analysis. In particular, dynamic symbolic execution and the computational learning technique grammar induction are used to conjecture input-output specifications, and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement to confirm or refute the equivalence between the conjectured specification and the original program. Once equivalence checking succeeds, from the inferred specifications we synthesise code that executes speculatively in parallel---enabling automated parallelisation of irregular loops that are not necessary polyhedral, disjoint or with a static pipeline structure.
|
15 |
The META4 programming language /Kim, Jason W., January 2002 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2003. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 295-300).
|
16 |
Toward an optimum programming language for communications computersBlood, Benjamin Donald, 1940- January 1973 (has links)
No description available.
|
17 |
A generalized facility for the analysis and synthesis of strings, and a procedure-based model of an implementationDoyle, John Nicoll, 1946- January 1975 (has links)
No description available.
|
18 |
Implementation of committed choice logic languages on shared memory multiprocessorsCrammond, James Alexander January 1988 (has links)
No description available.
|
19 |
A formal semantics of parallel features of Fortran 95Reid, N. K. January 2003 (has links)
No description available.
|
20 |
Usability evaluation of grammar formalisms for free wold order natural language processingPedersen, M. Unknown Date (has links)
No description available.
|
Page generated in 0.0745 seconds