Synchronous_reactive_systems/beamer/beamer.tex

154 lines
4.1 KiB
TeX
Raw Normal View History

2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usetheme{Darmstadt}
\begin{document}
2022-12-16 05:06:27 +01:00
\title{Presentation of our Lustre-to-C compiler}
%\subtitle{}
\date{16 December 2022}
\author{Benjamin Loison, Arnaud Daby-Seesaram, Antoine Grimod}
\frame{\titlepage}
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\section{Structure of the compiler}
\begin{frame}{Main ideas}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (sf) {Source file};
\node[right =2cm of sf] (ast) {Typed AST};
\node[right =2cm of ast] (C) {C program};
\draw
(sf) edge[->] node[above] {parser} (ast)
(ast) edge[->] node[above] {compiler} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Structure of the compiler}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}{Testing}
\begin{block}{Passes}
The passes can be split into:
\begin{itemize}
\item those checking the program validity
\item those modifying the AST of the program
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
\section{Typed AST}
\subsection{First attempt using GADTs}
\begin{frame}
\begin{block}{Main idea}
Using GADTs to represent nodes and expressions allows to ensure the
well-typedness of a program.
\end{block}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{imgs/gadt.png}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}
\begin{block}{Pros of using GADTs}
\begin{itemize}
\item Any term of the GADT represents a well-typed program
\item Extending the language to support more types consists of adding
constructors to variables and constants
\item The types are easy to read and understand
\end{itemize}
\end {block}
\begin{block}{Cons of using GADTs}
\begin{itemize}
\item
They cannot be dynamically generated (hence it is impossible to
implement a parser that gives back a GADT)
\item
One should think about the isomorphism between
\texttt{a $\ast$ (b $\ast$ c)} and \texttt{(a $\ast$ b) $\ast$ c}.
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
\subsection{Second attempt: using explicit types in the variables, expressions,
\dots{} constructors}
\begin{frame}
\begin{block}{Idea}
Explicitly collect typing information while parsing.
\end{block}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{imgs/explicit_types.png}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}
\begin{block}{Pros of using explicit types}
\begin{itemize}
\item Programs can be built dynamically, hence a parser can be
written
\item While parsing, the parser has all the required information on
the sub-variables/nodes/expressions to check the well-typedness
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Cons of these definitions}
\begin{itemize}
\item The typing information on terms is very redundant.
\item The rejection of ill-typed programs depends on the correctness
of the parser
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
\section{Passes}
\begin{frame}{Passes}
\begin{block}{Sanity checks}
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\begin{itemize}
\item Check the well-typedness of a program
\item Check that there are no assignment conflicts in a programs
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{AST modification}
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\begin{itemize}
\item Rewrite automata into \texttt{if-then-else} constructs
\item Linearization of the equations
\item (no longer required) Push the \texttt{pre} to variables
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
\section{Translation to C}
\begin{frame}
\centerline{\Huge TODO $\boxed{\ddot\smile}$}
\end{frame}
\section{Tests}
\begin{frame}{Tests}
\begin{block}{testing methods}
We thought of three testing methods:
\begin{itemize}
\item manual testing of our functionalities
\item run the sanity-checks-passes after any AST-altering pass
\item simulation of the nodes (aborted)
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
\section{Possible improvements}
\begin{frame}{Improvements}
\begin{itemize}
\item Increase the expressivity of the accepted programs
\item Improve the complexity of the different passes
\begin{itemize}
\item Group neighbour passes of the same type (node-, expression or
equation-pass).
\end{itemize}
\item \dots{}
\end{itemize}
2022-12-15 11:40:29 +01:00
\end{frame}
\end{document}