1 / 21

Integrating Haskell to .NET

André Santos / Monique Monteiro {alms,mlbm}@cin.ufpe.br. Integrating Haskell to .NET. Rotor Workshop Sep 2005 - MSR. Motivation. Advantages of having Haskell compiler for the .NET platform Easier interop with other languages Stronger integration of Haskell to .NET components and tools

bevan
Télécharger la présentation

Integrating Haskell to .NET

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. André Santos / Monique Monteiro {alms,mlbm}@cin.ufpe.br Integrating Haskell to .NET Rotor Workshop Sep 2005 - MSR

  2. Motivation • Advantages of having Haskell compiler for the .NET platform • Easier interop with other languages • Stronger integration of Haskell to .NET components and tools • Performance • Limitation of previous implementations

  3. Related work • Previous Haskell implementations for .NET • Little or no documentation • Partial implementations • (very) limited availability and documentation • Implementation of other functional languages for .NET • Scheme, F#, SML.NET, Mondrian, etc. • But Haskell is a lazy functional language • Implementations of Haskell for the JVM

  4. JVM x .NET CLR JVM ● ○ ○ ○ CLR ○ ● ● ● Focus on OO Languages Focus on language interoperability Support for tail calls Support for function pointers

  5. Main Design Decisions • Evaluation strategy • uses push/enter model (instead of eval/apply) • Data types representation • Use common container classes (instead ofClasses for each constructor of each Haskell datatype) • Closure representation

  6. Closure Representation • One class per closure • Large number of classes: (expected) high overhead for class loading, verification routines, etc. • Classes with Function Pointers • Unverifiable code • Delegates • Type-safe • Better performance in .NET 2.0

  7. One class / closure public class Closure_302 : Closure { public Closure value; public static Closure enter(){ // if value is available // return it // otherwise evaluate specific closure code, update it and return it } }

  8. Common closure class public class Closure : Delegate { public Closure value; public static IClosure Enter(){ // if value is available return it // otherwise save stacks’ state, evaluate (call to Delegate.Invoke), // update value, restore stacks’ state and return value ... } }

  9. Closure Representation • Updateable closures • Keep a value field • Non-updateable closures • Keep an arity field • Keep a partial application field to encapsulate received arguments • Both keep the free variables • Set to null after update • Delegates point to the slow entry point • Slow entry point X fast entry point

  10. Runtime System - Closures

  11. Example: map function map = {} \n {f,l} -> case l of Nil {} -> Nil {} Cons {x,xs} -> let fx = {f,x} \u {} -> f {x} fxs = {f,xs} \u {} -> map {f,xs} in Cons {fx,fxs}

  12. Example: generated code public static IClosure map(NonUpdatable clo){ ... } public static IClosure map(IClosure f,IClosure l){ Pack scrutinee = (Pack)l.Enter(); switch(scrutinee.tag){ case 1: return new Pack(1); case 2: Pack_2<IClosure,IClosure> cons = (Pack_2<IClosure,IClosure>)scrutinee; IClosure x = cons.arg1; IClosure xs = cons.arg2; Updateable_2_FV fx_closure = new Updateable_2_FV(fx); fx_closure.fv1 = f; fx_closure.fv2 = x; Updateable_2_FV mfxs_closure = new Updateable_2_FV(mfxs); mfxs_closure.fv1 = f; mfxs_closure.fv2 = xs; return new Pack_2<IClosure,IClosure>(2, fx_closure, mfxs_closure); } } Slow entry point Fast entry point Nil tag Cons tag

  13. Implementation Decisions • Use existing optimizing compiler for Haskell • The Glasgow Haskell Compiler –GHC • STG Intermediate representation Language • Generate code in CIL • No support for explicit tail-calls from C# • Cannot extend (Multicast)delegate class from C#

  14. Current Status • Support for parts of the Haskell prelude • (GHC) modules Base, List, Num, Show, Real, Enum, … • Currently performing tests and performance evaluation using some programs from Nofib Benchmark suite • Limited performance results so far

  15. Execution Times CAFs (top-level constants)

  16. Some Profiling Results • CAFs (updateable closure + value) lead to long-lived objects (Gen 2) and large memory consumption • Delegates are the largest objects • Delegate constructors have the highest cost among runtime system methods

  17. Main Difficulties • In-place updating is not supported • It is not possible to store pointers to references • Tail-calls • It’s not clear in which situations they are supported by the execution system • Delegates? Virtual methods? Method in other assemblies? • “Disabled in fully-trusted environments”

  18. Main Difficulties • CLR stack limitations: • Push/enter approach requires the direct management of a stack for handling calls to unknown functions • Separate stack(s) had to be implemented • Possible solution: eval/apply approach

  19. Main Difficulties • .NET 2.0 in Beta version • Limited profiling tools for .NET 2.0 • Rotor for .NET 2.0 is not available yet • Calls to C routines in Prelude modules • implement .NET FFI convention

  20. Next Steps • Fix the CAF problem • Evaluate changes in delegates inheritance • Investigate tail-calls and their limitations/overhead in .NET 2.0 • Extend Rotor with support for Closures • Investigate ways of exposing Haskell code to other .NET languages and vice-versa

  21. André Santos / Monique Monteiro {alms,mlbm}@cin.ufpe.br Questions?

More Related