|
In most compilers today, the front-end generates an AST, from which an(other) intermediate representation (IR, named Thorin in AnyDSL[1]) is generated. On that IR, the "middle-end" already optimizes a lot and the back-end finally generates whatever output formats the compiler targets (for AnyDSL: LLVM, CUDA/NVVM, OpenCL). > * In AnyDSL, the front end takes the code and compiles it into, well, the same language, only with decreasing levels of abstraction from the hardware. The AnyDSL language (Impala) compiler works exactly like my compiler description above. However, the levels of abstraction you refer to here, are all written in the same "top level" language (a "host" language in DSL literature terms) and are basically just libraries on top of each other. The @ on the iterate call partially evaluates the call (aggressive inlining and specialization) at compile time on the Thorin IR. This feature allows the compiler to remove the layers of abstraction again and bake the code together, like you say. > But yes, it still feels fundamentally like a compiler. Only a compiler where you can't just link in existing C-based libraries, because then it wouldn't be able to do its magic. So you therefore need to reinvent all the wheels? Yes, it is a compiler - but you don't need to write one for your DSL (unless you really need other syntax). You're correct with regard to external libraries: If you need to remove the abstraction overhead (e.g. function calls) of your external library for performance reasons you'd need to re-implement that in AnyDSL. However, that holds true for any DSL framework and compiler, unless you compile everything to (C) binaries and do partial evaluation at link time. But at that point you've already lost a lot of information that a compiler can usefully exploit to generate better code: more abstract types, higher-order functions, scheduling info, alias info, etc.. [1] See the paper: http://compilers.cs.uni-saarland.de/papers/lkh15_cgo.pdf |
For quite some time, C and C++ linkers have had the ability to look back at the original C/C++ code and literally rebuild the code differently to optimize the program across objects. In the Microsoft compile chain this is called "Global Optimizations". So I don't see AnyDSL's ability to do the same as a completely unique proposition.
The other issue that I see with this is that 98% of code doesn't need to be optimized down to the level that AnyDSL enables. JIT compilers are really good at optimizing the execution path without having to involve programmers at the intermediate and low levels, for example.
In the few cases where you need to target LLVM, CUDA and OpenCL for a particularly performance critical routine, I could see this as being useful, as long as the resulting code can be called from a more standard language. I'd like to see really trivial C bindings (via exported .h files) at a minimum, but C++, Go, Rust, JavaScript, Python, and other modern languages could really hit the performance required of 98% of the code, leaving only the extreme performance code for something like AnyDSL.
But I'd say that front-and-center: "AnyDSL is about creating ultra optimized cross-hardware performance critical code, targeting LLVM, CUDA, and OpenCL code based on the same high level code." All of the talk about theory is just distracting people from the actual "killer app" of AnyDSL.