Researcher profile

Amal Ahmed

Amal Ahmed contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Semantic Soundness for Language Interoperability

Programs are rarely implemented in a single language, and thus questions of type soundness should address not only the semantics of a single language, but how it interacts with others. Even between type-safe languages, disparate features frustrate interoperability, as invariants from one language can easily be violated in the other. In their seminal 2007 paper, Matthews and Findler proposed a multi-language construction that augments the interoperating languages with a pair of boundaries that allow code from one language to be embedded in the other. While the technique has been widely applied, their syntactic source-level interoperability doesn't reflect practical implementations, where behavior of interaction is defined after compilation to a common target, and any safety must be ensured by target invariants or inserted target-level "glue code." In this paper, we present a framework for the design and verification of sound language interoperability that follows an interoperation-after-compilation strategy. Language designers specify what data can be converted between types of the languages via a relation $τ_A \sim τ_B$ and specify target glue code implementing conversions. Then, by giving a semantic model of source types as sets of target terms, we can establish soundness of conversions: i.e., whenever $τ_A \sim τ_B$, the corresponding pair of conversions convert target terms that behave as $τ_A$ to target terms that behave as $τ_B$, and vice versa. We can then prove semantic type soundness for the entire system. We illustrate our framework via a series of case studies that demonstrate how our semantic interoperation-after-compilation approach allows us both to account for complex differences in language semantics and make efficiency trade-offs based on particularities of compilers or targets.

preprint2017arXiv

Correctness of Speculative Optimizations with Dynamic Deoptimization

High-performance dynamic language implementations make heavy use of speculative optimizations to achieve speeds close to statically compiled languages. These optimizations are typically performed by a just-in-time compiler that generates code under a set of assumptions about the state of the program and its environment. In certain cases, a program may execute code compiled under assumptions that are no longer valid. The implementation must then deoptimize the program on-the-fly; this entails finding semantically equivalent code that does not rely on invalid assumptions, translating program state to that expected by the target code, and transferring control. This paper looks at the interaction between optimization and deoptimization, and shows that reasoning about speculation is surprisingly easy when assumptions are made explicit in the program representation. This insight is demonstrated on a compiler intermediate representation, named \sourir, modeled after the high-level representation for a dynamic language. Traditional compiler optimizations such constant folding, dead code elimination, and function inlining are shown to be correct in the presence of assumptions. Furthermore, the paper establishes the correctness of compiler transformations specific to deoptimization: namely unrestricted deoptimization, predicate hoisting, and assume composition.