research-article

Provably correct peephole optimizations with alive

Authors:

David Menendez,

Santosh Nagarakatte,

John RegehrAuthors Info & Claims

PLDI '15: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Pages 22 - 32

https://doi.org/10.1145/2737924.2737965

Published: 03 June 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Compilers should not miscompile. Our work addresses problems in developing peephole optimizations that perform local rewriting to improve the efficiency of LLVM code. These optimizations are individually difficult to get right, particularly in the presence of undefined behavior; taken together they represent a persistent source of bugs. This paper presents Alive, a domain-specific language for writing optimizations and for automatically either proving them correct or else generating counterexamples. Furthermore, Alive can be automatically translated into C++ code that is suitable for inclusion in an LLVM optimization pass. Alive is based on an attempt to balance usability and formal methods; for example, it captures---but largely hides---the detailed semantics of three different kinds of undefined behavior in LLVM. We have translated more than 300 LLVM optimizations into Alive and, in the process, found that eight of them were wrong.

References

[1]

W. Ackermann. Solvable Cases of the Decision Problem. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 1954.

[2]

U. Aßmann. How to uniformly specify program analysis and transformation with graph rewrite systems. In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Compiler Construction, pages 121–135, 1996.

Digital Library

[3]

S. Bansal and A. Aiken. Automatic generation of peephole superoptimizers. In Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 394–403, 2006.

Digital Library

[4]

S. Buchwald. Optgen: A generator for local optimizations. In Proc. of the 24th International Conference on Compiler Construction (CC), pages 171–189, Apr. 2015.

[5]

R. Cytron, J. Ferrante, B. K. Rosen, M. N. Wegman, and F. K. Zadeck. Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 13(4):451–490, Oct. 1991.

Digital Library

[6]

J. W. Davidson and C. W. Fraser. Automatic generation of peephole optimizations. In Proc. of the 1984 SIGPLAN Symposium on Compiler Construction, pages 111–116, 1984.

Digital Library

[7]

L. De Moura and N. Bjørner. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 337–340, 2008.

Digital Library

[8]

S. Dissegna, F. Logozzo, and F. Ranzato. Tracing compilation by abstract interpretation. In Proc. of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 47–59, 2014.

Digital Library

[9]

S. Guyer and C. Lin. Broadway: A compiler for exploiting the domainspecific semantics of software libraries. Proceedings of the IEEE, 93 (2), 2005.

[10]

C. Hawblitzel, S. K. Lahiri, K. Pawar, H. Hashmi, S. Gokbulut, L. Fernando, D. Detlefs, and S. Wadsworth. Will you still compile me tomorrow? Static cross-version compiler validation. In Proc. of the 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), 2013.

Digital Library

[11]

R. Joshi, G. Nelson, and Y. Zhou. Denali: A practical algorithm for generating optimal code. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 28(6): 967–989, Nov. 2006.

Digital Library

[12]

D. Kozen and M.-C. Patron. Certification of compiler optimizations using Kleene algebra with tests. In Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Computational Logic, pages 568–582, 2000.

Digital Library

[13]

S. Kundu, Z. Tatlock, and S. Lerner. Proving optimizations correct using parameterized program equivalence. In Proc. of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 327–337, 2009.

Digital Library

[14]

D. Lacey, N. D. Jones, E. Van Wyk, and C. C. Frederiksen. Compiler optimization correctness by temporal logic. Higher Order Symbol. Comput., 17(3):173–206, Sept. 2004.

Digital Library

[15]

V. Le, M. Afshari, and Z. Su. Compiler validation via equivalence modulo inputs. In Proc. of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 216–226, 2014.

Digital Library

[16]

S. Lerner, T. Millstein, E. Rice, and C. Chambers. Automated soundness proofs for dataflow analyses and transformations via local rules. In Proc. of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 364–377, 2005.

Digital Library

[17]

X. Leroy. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 52(7):107–115, 2009.

Digital Library

[18]

LLVM Developers. LLVM Language Reference Manual. Available from http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html, 2014.

[19]

N. P. Lopes and J. Monteiro. Weakest precondition synthesis for compiler optimizations. In Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, pages 203–221, 2014.

Digital Library

[20]

N. P. Lopes and J. Monteiro. Automatic equivalence checking of programs with uninterpreted functions and integer arithmetic. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., 2015.

[21]

W. Mansky and E. Gunter. A cross-language framework for verifying compiler optimizations. In Proc. of the 5th Workshop on Syntax and Semantics of Low-Level Languages, 2014.

[22]

H. Massalin. Superoptimizer: A look at the smallest program. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 122–126, 1987.

Digital Library

[23]

W. M. McKeeman. Differential testing for software. Digital Technical Journal, 10(1):100–107, Dec. 1998.

[24]

R. Morisset, P. Pawan, and F. Z. Nardelli. Compiler testing via a theory of sound optimisations in the C11/C++11 memory model. In Proc. of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 187–196, 2013.

Digital Library

[25]

G. C. Necula. Translation validation for an optimizing compiler. In Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 83–94, 2000.

Digital Library

[26]

A. Pnueli, M. Siegel, and E. Singerman. Translation validation. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 151–166, 1998.

Digital Library

[27]

N. Ramsey, J. Dias, and S. P. Jones. Hoopl: A modular, reusable library for dataflow analysis and transformation. In Proc. of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Haskell, 2010.

Digital Library

[28]

A. Saabas and T. Uustalu. Program and proof optimizations with type systems. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 77(1–2): 131–154, 2008.

[29]

H. Samet. Proving the correctness of heuristically optimized code. In Communications of the ACM, 1978.

Digital Library

[30]

E. Schkufza, R. Sharma, and A. Aiken. Stochastic superoptimization. In Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2013.

Digital Library

[31]

T. A. L. Sewell, M. O. Myreen, and G. Klein. Translation validation for a verified OS kernel. In Proc. of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 471– 482, 2013.

Digital Library

[32]

M. Stepp, R. Tate, and S. Lerner. Equality-based translation validator for LLVM. In Proc. of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pages 737–742, 2011.

Digital Library

[33]

R. Tate, M. Stepp, and S. Lerner. Generating compiler optimizations from proofs. In Proc. of the 37th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2010.

Digital Library

[34]

J.-B. Tristan, P. Govereau, and G. Morrisett. Evaluating value-graph translation validation for LLVM. In Proc. of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 295–305, 2011.

Digital Library

[35]

V. Vafeiadis, T. Balabonski, S. Chakraborty, R. Morisset, and F. Z. Nardelli. Common compiler optimisations are invalid in the C11 memory model and what we can do about it. In Proc. of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2015.

Digital Library

[36]

D. L. Whitfield and M. L. Soffa. An approach for exploring code improving transformations. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 19(6): 1053–1084, Nov. 1997.

Digital Library

[37]

X. Yang, Y. Chen, E. Eide, and J. Regehr. Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers. In Proc. of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 283– 294, 2011.

Digital Library

[38]

A. Zaks and A. Pnueli. CoVaC: Compiler validation by program analysis of the cross-product. In Proc. of the 15th International Symposium on Formal Methods, pages 35–51, 2008.

Digital Library

[39]

J. Zhao, S. Nagarakatte, M. M. Martin, and S. Zdancewic. Formalizing the LLVM intermediate representation for verified program transformations. In Proc. of the 39th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 427–440, 2012.

Digital Library

[40]

J. Zhao, S. Nagarakatte, M. M. Martin, and S. Zdancewic. Formal verification of SSA-based optimizations for LLVM. In Proc. of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 175–186, 2013.

Digital Library

Cited By

Xie WLuo QTian XHuang JQi F(2024)Performance Improvements via Peephole Optimization in Dynamic Binary TranslationElectronics10.3390/electronics1309160813:9(1608)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13091608
Lin ZGancher JParno B(2024)FlowCert: Translation Validation for Asynchronous Dataflow via Dynamic Fractional PermissionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36897298:OOPSLA2(499-526)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689729
Mukherjee MRegehr J(2024)Hydra: Generalizing Peephole Optimizations with Program SynthesisProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36498378:OOPSLA1(725-753)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649837
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Provably correct peephole optimizations with alive

Recommendations

Provably correct peephole optimizations with alive
PLDI '15

Compilers should not miscompile. Our work addresses problems in developing peephole optimizations that perform local rewriting to improve the efficiency of LLVM code. These optimizations are individually difficult to get right, particularly in the ...
Termination-checking for LLVM peephole optimizations
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

Mainstream compilers contain a large number of peephole optimizations, which perform algebraic simplification of the input program with local rewriting of the code. These optimizations are a persistent source of bugs. Our recent research on Alive, a ...
Alive-Infer: data-driven precondition inference for peephole optimizations in LLVM
PLDI '17

Peephole optimizations are a common source of compiler bugs. Compiler developers typically transform an incorrect peephole optimization into a valid one by strengthening the precondition. This process is challenging and tedious. This paper proposes ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

PLDI '15: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 2015

630 pages

ISBN:9781450334686

DOI:10.1145/2737924

General Chair:
David Grove
IBM Research, USA
,
Program Chair:
Steve Blackburn
Australian National University, Australia

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 50, Issue 6
PLDI '15
June 2015
630 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/2813885
Editor:
Andy Gill
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2015 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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 June 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

PLDI '15

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

PLDI '15: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 13 - 17, 2015

OR, Portland, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 406 of 2,067 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

140
Total Citations
View Citations
1,314
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)145
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Xie WLuo QTian XHuang JQi F(2024)Performance Improvements via Peephole Optimization in Dynamic Binary TranslationElectronics10.3390/electronics1309160813:9(1608)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13091608
Lin ZGancher JParno B(2024)FlowCert: Translation Validation for Asynchronous Dataflow via Dynamic Fractional PermissionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36897298:OOPSLA2(499-526)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689729
Mukherjee MRegehr J(2024)Hydra: Generalizing Peephole Optimizations with Program SynthesisProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36498378:OOPSLA1(725-753)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649837
Zang ZThimmaiah AGligoric MRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)JOG: Java JIT Peephole Optimizations and Tests from PatternsProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3640040(11-15)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3640040
Root AAhmad MSharlet DAdams AKamil SRagan-Kelley JAamodt TSwift MJerger N(2023)Fast Instruction Selection for Fast Digital Signal ProcessingProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 410.1145/3623278.3624768(125-137)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3623278.3624768
Mikek BZhang QChandra SBlincoe KTonella P(2023)Speeding up SMT Solving via Compiler OptimizationProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3616357(1177-1189)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611643.3616357
Li CJiang YXu CSu ZDruschel PKaufmann AMace JFlinn JSeltzer M(2023)Validating JIT Compilers via Compilation Space ExplorationProceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles10.1145/3600006.3613140(66-79)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3600006.3613140
Liu ZXiao DLi ZWang SMeng WJust RFraser G(2023)Exploring Missed Optimizations in WebAssembly OptimizersProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3597926.3598068(436-448)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597926.3598068
Zang ZThimmaiah AGligoric MJust RFraser G(2023)Pattern-Based Peephole Optimizations with Java JIT TestsProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3597926.3598038(64-75)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597926.3598038
Park JHong JRyu SBrady EPalsberg J(2023)Semantic Transformation Framework for Rewriting RulesProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation10.1145/3571786.3573016(1-13)Online publication date: 15-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571786.3573016
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.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents