Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Carl Christian Frederiksen

dblp:90/4795 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Compilers and program optimization · 67% Program verification · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Compilers and program optimization
compiler correctness
0.012002
Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002
Compilers and program optimization › compiler correctness
compiler optimization correctness
0.012002
Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002
Program verification
temporal logic verification
0.012002
Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic · POPL 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

temporal logic · 0.0rewrite rules · 0.0data flow analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic
abstract
Many classical compiler optimizations can be elegantly expressed using rewrite rules of form: I ⇒ I ′ if φ , where I , I ′ are intermediate language instructions and φ is a property expressed in a temporal logic suitable for describing program data flow. Its reading: If the current program π contains an instruction of form I at some control point p , and if flow condition φ is satisfied at p , then replace I by I ′.The purpose of this paper is to show how such transformations may be proven correct. Our methodology is illustrated by three familiar optimizations, dead code elimination, constant folding and code motion. The meaning of correctness is that for any program π, if Rewrite (π, π′, p , I ⇒ I ′ if φ) then [[π]] = [[π′]], i.e. π and π′ have exactly the same semantics.
David Lacey, Neil D. Jones, Eric Van Wyk, Carl Christian Frederiksen
POPL4