DOCSLIB.ORG

Parser Combinator Compiler (Pc-Compiler)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parser Combinator Compiler (Pc-Compiler) Optimizing Parser Combinators Jan Kurˇs†, Jan Vran´y‡, Mohammad Ghafari†, Mircea Lungu¶ and Oscar Nierstrasz† †Software Composition Group, ‡Software Engineering Group, ¶Software Engineering and University of Bern, Czech Technical University, Architecture Group, Switzerland Czech Republic Universtiy of Groningen, scg.unibe.ch swing.fit.cvut.cz Netherlands http://www.cs.rug.nl/search Abstract also powerful in their expressiveness as they can parse Parser combinators are a popular approach to pars- beyond context-free languages (e.g., layout-sensitive ing. Parser combinators follow the structure of an un- languages (Hutton and Meijer 1996; Adams and A˘gacan derlying grammar, are modular, well-structured, easy 2014)). to maintain, and can recognize a large variety of lan- Nevertheless, parser combinators yet remain a tech- guages including context-sensitive ones. However, their nology for prototyping and not for the actual deploy- universality and flexibility introduces a noticeable per- ment. Firstly, naive implementations do not handle left- formance overhead. Time-wise, parser combinators can- recursive grammars, though there are already solutions not compete with parsers generated by well-performing to this issue (Frost et al. 2007; Warth et al. 2008). Sec- parser generators or optimized hand-written code. ondly, the expressive power of parser combinators comes Techniques exist to achieve a linear asymptotic per- at a price of less efficiency. A parser combinator uses formance of parser combinators, yet there is still a sig- the full power of a Turing-equivalent formalism to rec- nificant constant multiplier. This can be further lowered ognize even simple languages that could be recognized using meta-programming techniques. by finite state machines or pushdown automata. That In this work we present a more traditional approach is, parser combinators cannot reach the peak perfor- to optimization — a compiler — applied to the do- mance of parser generators (Levine 2009), hand-written main of parser combinators. A parser combinator com- parsers or optimized code (see section 5 or (B´eguetand piler (pc-compiler) analyzes a parser combinator, ap- Jonnalagedda 2014)§4). plies parser combinator-specific optimizations and, gen- Meta-programming approaches such as macros (Bur- erates an equivalent high-performance top-down parser. mako 2013) and staging (Rompf and Odersky 2010) Such a compiler preserves the advantages of parser com- have been applied to Scala parser combinators (Moors binators while complementing them with better perfor- et al. 2008) with significant performance improve- mance. ments (B´eguetand Jonnalagedda 2014; Jonnalagedda et al. 2014). In general, these approaches remove compo- 1. Introduction sition overhead and intermediate representations. Many other parser combinator implementations battle perfor- Parser combinators (Wadler 1995; Moors et al. 2008) mance problems by using efficient structures, macros represent a popular approach to parsing. They are etc. (see Parboiled 2,1 attoparsec2 or FParsec3). straightforward to construct, readable, modular, well- Nevertheless, none of the proposed optimizations yet structured and easy to maintain. Parser combinators are reach the performance of hand-written code. In our work we focus on the performance of PetitParser (Reng- gli et al. 2010; Kurˇset al. 2013) — a parser combi- nator framework utilizing packrat parsing (Ford 2002). We present a parser combinator compiler (pc-compiler) 1 https://github.com/sirthias/parboiled2 2 http://www.serpentine.com/blog/2014/05/31/attoparsec/ [Copyright notice will appear here once ’preprint’ option is removed.] 3 http://www.quanttec.com/fparsec/ 1 2016/7/8 that utilizes standard compiler techniques and applies Operator Description optimizations tailored to parser combinators. Based on 0 0 a compile-time analysis of a grammar, we avoid compo- Literal string sition overhead, reduce object allocations, and optimize [ ] Character class choices to minimize the backtracking overhead when- [ ] negate Complement of a character class ever possible. The result of “compilation” is an opti- #letter Characters [a-zA-Z] mized top-down parser that provides performance as #digit Characters [0-9] fast as hand-written code. In particular, based on our #space Characters [\t\n ] benchmarks covering five different grammars for Petit- e? Optional Parser,4 a pc-compiler offers a performance improve- e∗ Zero or more ment of a factor ranging from two to ten, depending on e+ One or more the grammar. Based on our Smalltalk case study, our &e And-predicate approach is 20% slower compared to a highly-optimized, !e Not-predicate hand-written parser. e1 e2 Sequence The paper makes the following contributions: i) ap- e1/e2 Prioritized Choice plication of compiler-technology approaches to the do- e map: action Semantic Action main of parser combinators; ii) an identification of per- e token Build a token formance bottlenecks for PetitParser; iii) a description of optimization techniques addressing these bottlenecks; Table 1. PetitParser operators and iv) an analysis of their effectiveness. The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we rule is a "class " keyword followed by a space. Identi- introduce PetitParser, and in section 3 we describe its fiers start with a letter followed by any number of letters performance bottlenecks. In section 4 we introduce a or digits. Class keyword and identifiers are transformed pc-compiler — a framework to deal with problems de- into instances of Token , which keep information about scribed in section 3. In section 5 we provide a detailed start and end positions and the string value of a token. performance analysis of a pc-compiler and its optimiza- There is a semantic action associated to a class rule tions. In section 6 we describe other approaches to im- that creates an instance of ClassNode filled with an prove parser combinators performance, and we briefly identifier value and a class body. discuss similarities and differences between them and A class body is indentation-sensitive, i.e., indent our approach. Finally, section 7 concludes this paper. and dedent determine the scope of a class (instead of 2. Petit Parser commonly used brackets e.g., f and g ). The indent In this section we introduce PetitParser and inspect in and dedent rules determine whether a line is indented, detail its implementation. In the following section we i.e., on a column strictly greater than the previous line describe performance bottlenecks of this implementa- or dedented, i.e., column strictly smaller than the pre- tion. vious line. The indent and dednet rules are repre- PetitParser (Renggli et al. 2010; Kurˇset al. 2013) sented by specialized action parsers that manipulate an indentation stack by pushing and popping the current is a parser combinator framework (Hutton and Meijer 9 1996) that utilizes packrat parsing (Ford 2002), scanner- indentation level, similarly to the scanner of Python. less parsing (Visser 1997) and parsing expression gram- The class body contains a sequence of classes and meth- mars (PEGs) (Ford 2004). PetitParser is implemented ods. 5 6 7 8 in Pharo, Smalltalk/X, Java and Dart. 2.1 Deep into PetitParser PetitParser uses an internal DSL similar to a stan- dard PEG syntax as briefly described in Table 1. A Figure 1 shows a composition of parser combinators grammar fragment describing a simple programming that are created after evaluating the code in Listing 1. language is shown in Listing 1. This composition is created “ahead-of-time” before a A program in this grammar consists of a non-empty parse attempt takes place and can be reused for multiple sequence of classes. A class starts with classToken , parse attempts. followed by an idToken and body . The classToken The root program rule is translated into a Plus parser referencing the class combinator. The class 4 arithmetic expressions, Java, Smalltalk and Python rule is an Action parser — a parser that evaluates 5 http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/˜Moose/PetitParser a block — specified by a map: parameter, the argu- 6 https://bitbucket.org/janvrany/stx-goodies-petitparser 7 https://github.com/petitparser/java-petitparser 9 https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_naalysis. 8 https://github.com/petitparser/dart-petitparser html#indentation 2 2016/7/8 letterOrDigit← #letter / #digit identifier ← (#letter letterOrDigit*) Plus idToken ← identifier token program classToken ← (’class’ &#space) token class ← classToken idToken body Action class ClassNode new map: [:classToken :idToken :body | id: idToken value ClassNode new map: body: body name: idToken value; Sequence body: body] body ← indent Token Token Sequence (class / method)* classToken idToken body dedent program ← class+ … Sequence Indent Star Dedent Listing 1. Simple grammar in PetitParser DSL. identifier indent dedent CharClass Star Choice ments being collected from the result of an underlying #letter Sequence parser. The idToken and classToken rules are Token Choice Action letterOrDigit method parsers, which consume whitespace and create token in- stances. The ’class’ rule is a Literal parser, which is a leaf combinator and does not refer to any other com- CharClass … #digit binators. The classToken rule contains a sequence of Literal and AndPredicate combinators (omitted in the Figure 1). The identifier rule is a sequence of Figure 1. The structure of parser combinators created CharClass and Star parsers. The Choice parser after evaluating the code of Listing 1. letterOrDigit shares the CharClass parser with its identifier grand-parent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Design and Evaluation of an Auto-Memoization Processor
    DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF AN AUTO-MEMOIZATION PROCESSOR Tomoaki TSUMURA Ikuma SUZUKI Yasuki IKEUCHI Nagoya Inst. of Tech. Toyohashi Univ. of Tech. Toyohashi Univ. of Tech. Gokiso, Showa, Nagoya, Japan 1-1 Hibarigaoka, Tempaku, 1-1 Hibarigaoka, Tempaku, [email protected] Toyohashi, Aichi, Japan Toyohashi, Aichi, Japan [email protected] [email protected] Hiroshi MATSUO Hiroshi NAKASHIMA Yasuhiko NAKASHIMA Nagoya Inst. of Tech. Academic Center for Grad. School of Info. Sci. Gokiso, Showa, Nagoya, Japan Computing and Media Studies Nara Inst. of Sci. and Tech. [email protected] Kyoto Univ. 8916-5 Takayama Yoshida, Sakyo, Kyoto, Japan Ikoma, Nara, Japan [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT for microprocessors, and it made microprocessors faster. But now, the interconnect delay is going major and the This paper describes the design and evaluation of main memory and other storage units are going relatively an auto-memoization processor. The major point of this slower. In near future, high clock rate cannot achieve good proposal is to detect the multilevel functions and loops microprocessor performance by itself. with no additional instructions controlled by the compiler. Speedup techniques based on ILP (Instruction-Level This general purpose processor detects the functions and Parallelism), such as superscalar or SIMD, have been loops, and memoizes them automatically and dynamically. counted on. However, the effect of these techniques has Hence, any load modules and binary programs can gain proved to be limited. One reason is that many programs speedup without recompilation or rewriting. have little distinct parallelism, and it is pretty difficult for We also propose a parallel execution by multiple compilers to come across latent parallelism.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel Backtracking with Answer Memoing for Independent And-Parallelism∗
    Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 Parallel Backtracking with Answer Memoing for Independent And-Parallelism∗ Pablo Chico de Guzman,´ 1 Amadeo Casas,2 Manuel Carro,1;3 and Manuel V. Hermenegildo1;3 1 School of Computer Science, Univ. Politecnica´ de Madrid, Spain. (e-mail: [email protected], fmcarro,[email protected]) 2 Samsung Research, USA. (e-mail: [email protected]) 3 IMDEA Software Institute, Spain. (e-mail: fmanuel.carro,[email protected]) Abstract Goal-level Independent and-parallelism (IAP) is exploited by scheduling for simultaneous execution two or more goals which will not interfere with each other at run time. This can be done safely even if such goals can produce multiple answers. The most successful IAP implementations to date have used recomputation of answers and sequentially ordered backtracking. While in principle simplifying the implementation, recomputation can be very inefficient if the granularity of the parallel goals is large enough and they produce several answers, while sequentially ordered backtracking limits parallelism. And, despite the expected simplification, the implementation of the classic schemes has proved to involve complex engineering, with the consequent difficulty for system maintenance and extension, while still frequently running into the well-known trapped goal and garbage slot problems. This work presents an alternative parallel backtracking model for IAP and its implementation. The model fea- tures parallel out-of-order (i.e., non-chronological) backtracking and relies on answer memoization to reuse and combine answers. We show that this approach can bring significant performance advantages. Also, it can bring some simplification to the important engineering task involved in implementing the backtracking mechanism of previous approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Derivatives of Parsing Expression Grammars
    Derivatives of Parsing Expression Grammars Aaron Moss Cheriton School of Computer Science University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada [email protected] This paper introduces a new derivative parsing algorithm for recognition of parsing expression gram- mars. Derivative parsing is shown to have a polynomial worst-case time bound, an improvement on the exponential bound of the recursive descent algorithm. This work also introduces asymptotic analysis based on inputs with a constant bound on both grammar nesting depth and number of back- tracking choices; derivative and recursive descent parsing are shown to run in linear time and constant space on this useful class of inputs, with both the theoretical bounds and the reasonability of the in- put class validated empirically. This common-case constant memory usage of derivative parsing is an improvement on the linear space required by the packrat algorithm. 1 Introduction Parsing expression grammars (PEGs) are a parsing formalism introduced by Ford [6]. Any LR(k) lan- guage can be represented as a PEG [7], but there are some non-context-free languages that may also be represented as PEGs (e.g. anbncn [7]). Unlike context-free grammars (CFGs), PEGs are unambiguous, admitting no more than one parse tree for any grammar and input. PEGs are a formalization of recursive descent parsers allowing limited backtracking and infinite lookahead; a string in the language of a PEG can be recognized in exponential time and linear space using a recursive descent algorithm, or linear time and space using the memoized packrat algorithm [6]. PEGs are formally defined and these algo- rithms outlined in Section 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Programming Via Static Incrementalization 1 Introduction
    Dynamic Programming via Static Incrementalization Yanhong A. Liu and Scott D. Stoller Abstract Dynamic programming is an imp ortant algorithm design technique. It is used for solving problems whose solutions involve recursively solving subproblems that share subsubproblems. While a straightforward recursive program solves common subsubproblems rep eatedly and of- ten takes exp onential time, a dynamic programming algorithm solves every subsubproblem just once, saves the result, reuses it when the subsubproblem is encountered again, and takes p oly- nomial time. This pap er describ es a systematic metho d for transforming programs written as straightforward recursions into programs that use dynamic programming. The metho d extends the original program to cache all p ossibly computed values, incrementalizes the extended pro- gram with resp ect to an input increment to use and maintain all cached results, prunes out cached results that are not used in the incremental computation, and uses the resulting in- cremental program to form an optimized new program. Incrementalization statically exploits semantics of b oth control structures and data structures and maintains as invariants equalities characterizing cached results. The principle underlying incrementalization is general for achiev- ing drastic program sp eedups. Compared with previous metho ds that p erform memoization or tabulation, the metho d based on incrementalization is more powerful and systematic. It has b een implemented and applied to numerous problems and succeeded on all of them. 1 Intro duction Dynamic programming is an imp ortant technique for designing ecient algorithms [2, 44 , 13 ]. It is used for problems whose solutions involve recursively solving subproblems that overlap.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 432 Fall 2020 Top-Down (LL) Parsing
    CS 432 Fall 2020 Mike Lam, Professor Top-Down (LL) Parsing Compilation Current focus "Back end" Source code Tokens Syntax tree Machine code char data[20]; 7f 45 4c 46 01 int main() { 01 01 00 00 00 float x 00 00 00 00 00 = 42.0; ... return 7; } Lexing Parsing Code Generation & Optimization "Front end" Review ● Recognize regular languages with finite automata – Described by regular expressions – Rule-based transitions, no memory required ● Recognize context-free languages with pushdown automata – Described by context-free grammars – Rule-based transitions, MEMORY REQUIRED ● Add a stack! Segue KEY OBSERVATION: Allowing the translator to use memory to track parse state information enables a wider range of automated machine translation. Chomsky Hierarchy of Languages Recursively enumerable Context-sensitive Context-free Most useful Regular for PL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy Parsing Approaches ● Top-down: begin with start symbol (root of parse tree), and gradually expand non-terminals – Stack contains leaves that still need to be expanded ● Bottom-up: begin with terminals (leaves of parse tree), and gradually connect using non-terminals – Stack contains roots of subtrees that still need to be connected A V = E Top-down a E + E Bottom-up V V b c Top-Down Parsing root = createNode(S) focus = root A → V = E push(null) V → a | b | c token = nextToken() E → E + E loop: | V if (focus is non-terminal): B = chooseRuleAndExpand(focus) for each b in B.reverse(): focus.addChild(createNode(b)) push(b) A focus = pop() else if (token
    [Show full text]
  • Total Parser Combinators
    Total Parser Combinators Nils Anders Danielsson School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom [email protected] Abstract The library has an interface which is very similar to those of A monadic parser combinator library which guarantees termination classical monadic parser combinator libraries. For instance, con- of parsing, while still allowing many forms of left recursion, is sider the following simple, left recursive, expression grammar: described. The library’s interface is similar to those of many other term :: factor term '+' factor parser combinator libraries, with two important differences: one is factor ::D atom j factor '*' atom that the interface clearly specifies which parts of the constructed atom ::D numberj '(' term ')' parsers may be infinite, and which parts have to be finite, using D j dependent types and a combination of induction and coinduction; We can define a parser which accepts strings from this grammar, and the other is that the parser type is unusually informative. and also computes the values of the resulting expressions, as fol- The library comes with a formal semantics, using which it is lows (the combinators are described in Section 4): proved that the parser combinators are as expressive as possible. mutual The implementation is supported by a machine-checked correct- term factor ness proof. D ] term >> λ n j D 1 ! Categories and Subject Descriptors D.1.1 [Programming Tech- tok '+' >> λ D ! niques]: Applicative (Functional) Programming; E.1 [Data Struc- factor >> λ n D 2 ! tures]; F.3.1 [Logics and Meanings of Programs]: Specifying and return .n n / 1 C 2 Verifying and Reasoning about Programs; F.4.2 [Mathematical factor atom Logic and Formal Languages]: Grammars and Other Rewriting D ] factor >> λ n Systems—Grammar types, Parsing 1 j tok '*' >>D λ ! D ! General Terms Languages, theory, verification atom >> λ n2 return .n n / D ! 1 ∗ 2 Keywords Dependent types, mixed induction and coinduction, atom number parser combinators, productivity, termination D tok '(' >> λ j D ! ] term >> λ n 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercepting Functions for Memoization Arjun Suresh
    Intercepting functions for memoization Arjun Suresh To cite this version: Arjun Suresh. Intercepting functions for memoization. Programming Languages [cs.PL]. Université Rennes 1, 2016. English. NNT : 2016REN1S106. tel-01410539v2 HAL Id: tel-01410539 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01410539v2 Submitted on 11 May 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ANNEE´ 2016 THESE` / UNIVERSITE´ DE RENNES 1 sous le sceau de l’Universite´ Bretagne Loire En Cotutelle Internationale avec pour le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITE´ DE RENNES 1 Mention : Informatique Ecole´ doctorale Matisse present´ ee´ par Arjun SURESH prepar´ ee´ a` l’unite´ de recherche INRIA Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique Universite´ de Rennes 1 These` soutenue a` Rennes Intercepting le 10 Mai, 2016 devant le jury compose´ de : Functions Fabrice RASTELLO Charge´ de recherche Inria / Rapporteur Jean-Michel MULLER for Directeur de recherche CNRS / Rapporteur Sandrine BLAZY Memoization Professeur a` l’Universite´ de Rennes 1 / Examinateur Vincent LOECHNER Maˆıtre de conferences,´ Universite´ Louis Pasteur, Stras- bourg / Examinateur Erven ROHOU Directeur de recherche INRIA / Directeur de these` Andre´ SEZNEC Directeur de recherche INRIA / Co-directeur de these` If you save now you might benefit later.
    [Show full text]
  • Staged Parser Combinators for Efficient Data Processing
    Staged Parser Combinators for Efficient Data Processing Manohar Jonnalagedda∗ Thierry Coppeyz Sandro Stucki∗ Tiark Rompf y∗ Martin Odersky∗ ∗LAMP zDATA, EPFL {first.last}@epfl.ch yOracle Labs: {first.last}@oracle.com Abstract use the language’s abstraction capabilities to enable compo- Parsers are ubiquitous in computing, and many applications sition. As a result, a parser written with such a library can depend on their performance for decoding data efficiently. look like formal grammar descriptions, and is also readily Parser combinators are an intuitive tool for writing parsers: executable: by construction, it is well-structured, and eas- tight integration with the host language enables grammar ily maintainable. Moreover, since combinators are just func- specifications to be interleaved with processing of parse re- tions in the host language, it is easy to combine them into sults. Unfortunately, parser combinators are typically slow larger, more powerful combinators. due to the high overhead of the host language abstraction However, parser combinators suffer from extremely poor mechanisms that enable composition. performance (see Section 5) inherent to their implementa- We present a technique for eliminating such overhead. We tion. There is a heavy penalty to be paid for the expres- use staging, a form of runtime code generation, to dissoci- sivity that they allow. A grammar description is, despite its ate input parsing from parser composition, and eliminate in- declarative appearance, operationally interleaved with input termediate data structures and computations associated with handling, such that parts of the grammar description are re- parser composition at staging time. A key challenge is to built over and over again while input is processed.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Automatic Memoization As a Software Engineering Tool in Real-World AI Systems
    Using Automatic Memoization as a Software Engineering Tool in Real-World AI Systems James Mayfield Tim Finin Marty Hall Computer Science Department Eisenhower Research Cent er , JHU / AP L University of Maryland Baltimore County Johns Hopkins Rd. Baltimore, MD 21228-5398 USA Laurel, MD 20723 USA Abstract The principle of memoization and examples of its Memo functions and memoization are well-known use in areas as varied as lo?; profammi2 v6, 6, 21, concepts in AI programming. They have been dis- functional programming 41 an natur anguage cussed since the Sixties and are ofien used as ezamples parsing [ll]have been described in the literature. In in introductory programming texts. However, the au- all of the case^ that we have reviewed, the use of tomation of memoization as a practical sofiware en- memoization was either built into in a special purpose gineering tool for AI systems has not received a de- computing engine (e.g., for rule-based deduction, or tailed treatment. This paper describes how automatic CFG parsing), or treated in a cursory way as an ex- memoization can be made viable on a large scale. It ample rather than taken seriously as a practical tech- points out advantages and uses of automatic memo- nique. The automation of function memoization as ization not previously described, identifies the com- a practical software engineering technique under hu- ponents of an automatic memoization facility, enu- man control has never received a detailed treatment. merates potential memoization failures, and presents In this paper, we report on our experience in develop- a publicly available memoization package (CLAMP) ing CLAMP, a practical automatic memoization pack- for the Lisp programming language.
    [Show full text]
  • Recursion and Memoization
    Computer Science 201a, Prof. Dana Angluin 1 Recursion and Memoization Memoization Memoization is the idea of saving and reusing previously computed values of a function rather than recom- puting them. To illustrate the idea, we consider the example of computing the Fibonacci numbers using a simple recursive program. The Fibonacci numbers are defined by specifying that the first two are equal to 1, and every successive one is the sum of the preceding two. Letting Fn denote the nth Fibonacci number, we have F0 = F1 = 1 and for n ≥ 2, Fn = Fn−1 + Fn−2. The sequence begins 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21,... We define a function (fib n) to return the value of Fn. (define fib (lambda (n) (if (<= n 1) 1 (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)))))) We diagram the tree of calls for (fib 6), showing only the arguments for the calls. (fib 6) /\ /\ 5 4 /\/\ 4 3 3 2 /\/\/\/\ 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 /\/\/\/\ 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 /\ 1 0 The value of (fib 6) is 13, and there are 13 calls that return 1 from the base cases of argument 0 or 1. Because this is a binary tree, there is one fewer non-base case calls, for a total of 25 calls. In fact, to compute (fib n) there will be 2Fn − 1 calls to the fib procedure. How fast does Fn grow as a function of n? The answer is: exponentially. It is not doubling at every step, but it is more than doubling at every other step, because Fn = Fn−1 + Fn−2 > 2Fn−2.
    [Show full text]
  • CS/ECE 374: Algorithms & Models of Computation
    CS/ECE 374: Algorithms & Models of Computation, Fall 2018 Backtracking and Memoization Lecture 12 October 9, 2018 Chandra Chekuri (UIUC) CS/ECE 374 1 Fall 2018 1 / 36 Recursion Reduction: Reduce one problem to another Recursion A special case of reduction 1 reduce problem to a smaller instance of itself 2 self-reduction 1 Problem instance of size n is reduced to one or more instances of size n − 1 or less. 2 For termination, problem instances of small size are solved by some other method as base cases. Chandra Chekuri (UIUC) CS/ECE 374 2 Fall 2018 2 / 36 Recursion in Algorithm Design 1 Tail Recursion: problem reduced to a single recursive call after some work. Easy to convert algorithm into iterative or greedy algorithms. Examples: Interval scheduling, MST algorithms, etc. 2 Divide and Conquer: Problem reduced to multiple independent sub-problems that are solved separately. Conquer step puts together solution for bigger problem. Examples: Closest pair, deterministic median selection, quick sort. 3 Backtracking: Refinement of brute force search. Build solution incrementally by invoking recursion to try all possibilities for the decision in each step. 4 Dynamic Programming: problem reduced to multiple (typically) dependent or overlapping sub-problems. Use memoization to avoid recomputation of common solutions leading to iterative bottom-up algorithm. Chandra Chekuri (UIUC) CS/ECE 374 3 Fall 2018 3 / 36 Subproblems in Recursion Suppose foo() is a recursive program/algorithm for a problem. Given an instance I , foo(I ) generates potentially many \smaller" problems. If foo(I 0) is one of the calls during the execution of foo(I ) we say I 0 is a subproblem of I .
    [Show full text]
  • Safestrings Representing Strings As Structured Data
    1 SafeStrings Representing Strings as Structured Data DAVID KELLY, University College London MARK MARRON, Microso Research DAVID CLARK, University College London EARL T. BARR, University College London Strings are ubiquitous in code. Not all strings are created equal, some contain structure that makes them incompatible with other strings. CSS units are an obvious example. Worse, type checkers cannot see this structure: this is the latent structure problem. We introduce SafeStrings to solve this problem and expose latent structure in strings. Once visible, operations can leverage this structure to efficiently manipulate it; further, SafeStrings permit the establishment of closure properties. SafeStrings harness the subtyping and inheritance mechanics of their host language to create a natural hierarchy of string subtypes. SafeStrings define an elegant programming model over strings: the front end use of a SafeString is clear and uncluered, with complexity confined inside the definition of a particular SafeString. ey are lightweight, language- agnostic and deployable, as we demonstrate by implementing SafeStrings in TypeScript. SafeStrings reduce the surface area for cross-site scripting, argument selection defects, and they can facilitate fuzzing and analysis. 1 Introduction Strings are the great dumping ground of programming. eir meagre structural obligations mean that it is easy to pour information into them. Developers use them to store semi-structured, even structured, data. omas Edison (paraphrasing Reynolds) captured the reason: “ ere is no expe- dient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.” Take colour assignment in css. As flat strings they take the form '#XXX' or '#XXXXXX', but they implicitly encode three integer values for rgb.
    [Show full text]