[1889] | 1 | \section{Our algorithm} |
---|
[2049] | 2 | |
---|
| 3 | \subsection{Design decisions} |
---|
| 4 | |
---|
| 5 | Given the NP-completeness of the problem, to arrive at an optimal solution |
---|
| 6 | within a short space of time (using, for example, a constraint solver) will |
---|
| 7 | potentially take a great amount of time. |
---|
| 8 | |
---|
[2080] | 9 | The SDCC compiler~\cite{SDCC2011}, which has the MCS-51 among its target |
---|
| 10 | instruction sets, simply encodes every jump as a long jump without taking the |
---|
| 11 | distance into account. While certainly correct (the long jump can reach any |
---|
| 12 | destination in memory) and rapid, it does result in a less than optimal |
---|
| 13 | solution. |
---|
[2049] | 14 | |
---|
[2080] | 15 | The {\tt gcc} compiler suite~\cite{GCC2012}, while compiling C on the x86 |
---|
| 16 | architecture, uses a greatest fix point algorithm. In other words, it starts |
---|
| 17 | off with all jumps encoded as the largest jumps available, and then tries to |
---|
| 18 | reduce jumps as much as possible. |
---|
| 19 | |
---|
[2049] | 20 | Such an algorithm has the advantage that any intermediate results it returns |
---|
| 21 | are correct: the solution where every jump is encoded as a large jump is |
---|
| 22 | always possible, and the algorithm only reduces those jumps where the |
---|
| 23 | destination address is in range for a shorter jump instruction. The algorithm |
---|
| 24 | can thus be stopped after a determined amount of steps without losing |
---|
| 25 | correctness. |
---|
| 26 | |
---|
| 27 | The result, however, is not necessarily optimal, even if the algorithm is run |
---|
| 28 | until it terminates naturally: the fixed point reached is the {\em greatest} |
---|
[2080] | 29 | fixed point, not the least fixed point. Furthermore, {\tt gcc} (at least for |
---|
| 30 | the x86 architecture) only uses short and long jumps. This makes the algorithm |
---|
| 31 | more rapid, as shown in the previous section, but also results in a less |
---|
| 32 | optimal solution. |
---|
[2049] | 33 | |
---|
[2080] | 34 | In the CerCo assembler, we opted at first for a least fixed point algorithm, |
---|
| 35 | taking medium jumps into account. |
---|
[2049] | 36 | |
---|
| 37 | Here, we ran into a problem with proving termination: whereas the SDCC |
---|
| 38 | algorithm only switches jumps from short to long, when we add medium jumps, |
---|
| 39 | it is theoretically possible for a jump to switch from medium to long and back, |
---|
| 40 | as explained in the previous section. |
---|
| 41 | |
---|
| 42 | Proving termination then becomes difficult, because there is nothing that |
---|
| 43 | precludes a jump switching back and forth between medium and long indefinitely. |
---|
| 44 | |
---|
| 45 | In fact, this mirrors the argument from~\cite{Szymanski1978}. There, it is |
---|
| 46 | argued that for the problem to be NP-complete, it must be allowed to contain |
---|
| 47 | {\em pathological} jumps. These are jumps that can normally not be encoded as a |
---|
| 48 | short(er) jump, but gain this property when some other jumps are encoded as a |
---|
| 49 | long(er) jump. This is exactly what happens in figure~\ref{f:term_example}: by |
---|
| 50 | encoding the first jump as a long jump, another jump switches from long to |
---|
| 51 | medium (which is shorter). |
---|
| 52 | |
---|
| 53 | In order to keep the algorithm linear and more easily prove termination, we |
---|
| 54 | decided to explicitly enforce the `jumps must always increase' requirement: if |
---|
| 55 | a jump is encoded as a long jump in one step, it will also be encoded as a |
---|
| 56 | long jump in all the following steps. This means that any jump can change at |
---|
| 57 | maximum two times: once from short to medium (or long), and once from medium |
---|
| 58 | to long. |
---|
| 59 | |
---|
| 60 | There is one complicating factor: suppose that a jump is encoded in step $n$ |
---|
| 61 | as a medium jump, but in step $n+1$ it is determined that (because of changes |
---|
| 62 | elsewhere) it can now be encoded as a short jump. Due to the requirement that |
---|
| 63 | jumps must always increase, this means that the jump will be encoded as a |
---|
| 64 | medium jump in step $n+1$ as well. |
---|
| 65 | |
---|
| 66 | This is not necessarily correct, however: it is not the case that any short |
---|
[2054] | 67 | jump can correctly be encoded as a medium jump (a short jump can bridge |
---|
| 68 | segments, whereas a medium jump cannot). Therefore, in this situation |
---|
[2049] | 69 | we decide to encode the jump as a long jump, which is always correct. |
---|
| 70 | |
---|
| 71 | The resulting algorithm, while not optimal, is at least as good as the ones |
---|
| 72 | from {\tt gcc} and SDCC, and potentially better. Its complexity remains |
---|
| 73 | linear (though with a higher constant than SDCC). |
---|
[2054] | 74 | |
---|
| 75 | \subsection{The algorithm in detail} |
---|
| 76 | |
---|
| 77 | The branch displacement algorithm forms part of the translation from |
---|
| 78 | pseudo-code to assembler. More specifically, it is used by the function that |
---|
| 79 | translates pseudo-addresses (natural numbers indicating the position of the |
---|
| 80 | instruction in the program) to actual addresses in memory. |
---|
| 81 | |
---|
| 82 | The original intention was to have two different functions, one function |
---|
| 83 | $\mathtt{policy}: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \{\mathtt{short}, \mathtt{medium}, |
---|
| 84 | \mathtt{long}\}$ to associate jumps to their intended translation, and a |
---|
| 85 | function $\sigma: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathtt{Word}$ to associate |
---|
| 86 | pseudo-addresses to actual addresses. $\sigma$ would use $\mathtt{policy}$ to |
---|
| 87 | determine the size of jump instructions. |
---|
| 88 | |
---|
| 89 | This turned out to be suboptimal from the algorithmic point of view and |
---|
| 90 | impossible to prove correct. |
---|
| 91 | |
---|
| 92 | From the algorithmic point of view, in order to create the $\mathtt{policy}$ |
---|
| 93 | function, we must necessarily have a translation from pseudo-addresses |
---|
| 94 | to actual addresses (i.e. a $\sigma$ function): in order to judge the distance |
---|
| 95 | between a jump and its destination, we must know their memory locations. |
---|
| 96 | Conversely, in order to create the $\sigma$ function, we need to have the |
---|
| 97 | $\mathtt{policy}$ function, otherwise we do not know the sizes of the jump |
---|
| 98 | instructions in the program. |
---|
| 99 | |
---|
| 100 | Much the same problem appears when we try to prove the algorithm correct: the |
---|
| 101 | correctness of $\mathtt{policy}$ depends on the correctness of $\sigma$, and |
---|
| 102 | the correctness of $\sigma$ depends on the correctness of $\mathtt{policy}$. |
---|
| 103 | |
---|
| 104 | We solved this problem by integrating the $\mathtt{policy}$ and $\sigma$ |
---|
| 105 | algorithms. We now have a function |
---|
| 106 | $\sigma: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathtt{Word} \times \mathtt{bool}$ which |
---|
| 107 | associates a pseudo-address to an actual address. The boolean denotes a forced |
---|
| 108 | long jump; as noted in the previous section, if during the fixed point |
---|
| 109 | computation a medium jump needs to be re-encoded as a short jump, the result |
---|
| 110 | is actually a long jump. It might therefore be the case that jumps are encoded |
---|
| 111 | as long jumps without this actually being necessary. |
---|
| 112 | |
---|
| 113 | The assembler function encodes the jumps by checking the distance between |
---|
| 114 | source and destination according to $\sigma$, so it could select a medium |
---|
| 115 | jump in a situation where there should be a long jump. The boolean is there |
---|
| 116 | to prevent this from happening by indicating the locations where a long jump |
---|
| 117 | should be encoded, even if a shorter jump is possible. This has no effect on |
---|
| 118 | correctness, since a long jump is applicable in any situation. |
---|
| 119 | |
---|
| 120 | \begin{figure} |
---|
| 121 | \begin{algorithmic} |
---|
[2064] | 122 | \Function{f}{$labels$,$old\_sigma$,$instr$,$ppc$,$acc$} |
---|
| 123 | \State $\langle added, pc, sigma \rangle \gets acc$ |
---|
| 124 | \If {$instr$ is a backward jump to $j$} |
---|
| 125 | \State $length \gets \mathrm{jump\_size}(pc,sigma_1(labels(j)))$ |
---|
| 126 | \ElsIf {$instr$ is a forward jump to $j$} |
---|
| 127 | \State $length \gets \mathrm{jump\_size}(pc,old\_sigma_1(labels(j))+added)$ |
---|
| 128 | \Else |
---|
| 129 | \State $length \gets \mathtt{short\_jump}$ |
---|
| 130 | \EndIf |
---|
| 131 | \State $old\_length \gets \mathrm{old\_sigma_1}(ppc)$ |
---|
| 132 | \State $new\_length \gets \mathrm{max}(old\_length, length)$ |
---|
| 133 | \State $old\_size \gets \mathrm{old\_sigma_2}(ppc)$ |
---|
| 134 | \State $new\_size \gets \mathrm{instruction\_size}(instr,new\_length)$ |
---|
| 135 | \State $new\_added \gets added+(new\_size-old\_size)$ |
---|
| 136 | \State $new\_sigma_1(ppc+1) \gets pc+new\_size$ |
---|
| 137 | \State $new\_sigma_2(ppc) \gets new\_length$ \\ |
---|
| 138 | \Return $\langle new\_added, pc+new\_size, new\_sigma \rangle$ |
---|
[2054] | 139 | \EndFunction |
---|
| 140 | \end{algorithmic} |
---|
| 141 | \caption{The heart of the algorithm} |
---|
| 142 | \label{f:jump_expansion_step} |
---|
| 143 | \end{figure} |
---|
[2064] | 144 | |
---|
| 145 | The algorithm, shown in figure~\ref{f:jump_expansion_step}, works by folding the |
---|
| 146 | function {\sc f} over the entire program, thus gradually constructing $sigma$. |
---|
| 147 | This constitutes one step in the fixed point calculation; successive steps |
---|
| 148 | repeat the fold until a fixed point is reached. |
---|
| 149 | |
---|
| 150 | Parameters of the function {\sc f} are: |
---|
| 151 | \begin{itemize} |
---|
| 152 | \item a function $labels$ that associates a label to its pseudo-address; |
---|
| 153 | \item $old\_sigma$, the $\sigma$ function returned by the previous |
---|
| 154 | iteration of the fixed point calculcation; |
---|
| 155 | \item $instr$, the instruction currently under consideration; |
---|
| 156 | \item $ppc$, the pseudo-address of $instr$; |
---|
| 157 | \item $acc$, the fold accumulator, which contains $pc$ (the highest memory |
---|
| 158 | address reached so far), $added$ (the number of bytes added to the program |
---|
| 159 | size with respect to the previous iteration), and of course $sigma$, the |
---|
| 160 | $\sigma$ function under construction. |
---|
| 161 | \end{itemize} |
---|
| 162 | |
---|
| 163 | The first two are parameters that remain the same through one iteration, the |
---|
| 164 | last three are standard parameters for a fold function (including $ppc$, |
---|
| 165 | which is simply the number of instructions of the program already processed). |
---|
| 166 | |
---|
| 167 | The $\sigma$ functions used by {\sc f} are not of the same type as the final |
---|
| 168 | $\sigma$ function: they are of type |
---|
| 169 | $\sigma: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N} \times \{\mathtt{short\_jump}, |
---|
| 170 | \mathtt{medium\_jump},\mathtt{long\_jump}\}$; a function that associates a |
---|
| 171 | pseudo-address with an memory address and a jump length. We do this to be able |
---|
| 172 | to more easily compare the jump lengths between iterations. In the algorithm, |
---|
| 173 | we use the notation $sigma_1(x)$ to denote the memory address corresponding to |
---|
| 174 | $x$, and $sigma_2(x)$ to denote the jump length corresponding to $x$. |
---|
| 175 | |
---|
| 176 | Note that the $\sigma$ function used for label lookup varies depending on |
---|
| 177 | whether the label is behind our current position or ahead of it. For |
---|
| 178 | backward jumps, where the label is behind our current position, we can use |
---|
| 179 | $sigma$ for lookup, since its memory address is already known. However, for |
---|
| 180 | forward jumps, the memory address of the address of the label is not yet |
---|
| 181 | known, so we must use $old\_sigma$. |
---|
| 182 | |
---|
| 183 | We cannot use $old\_sigma$ without change: it might be the case that we have |
---|
| 184 | already changed some jumps before, making the program longer. We must therefore |
---|
| 185 | compensate for this by adding the size increase of the program to the label's |
---|
| 186 | memory address according to $old\_sigma$, so that jump distances do not get |
---|
| 187 | compromised. |
---|
| 188 | |
---|
| 189 | Note also that we add the pc to $sigma$ at location $ppc+1$, whereas we add the |
---|
| 190 | jump length at location $ppc$. We do this so that $sigma(ppc)$ will always |
---|
| 191 | return a couple with the start address of the instruction at $ppc$ and the |
---|
| 192 | length of its jump; the end address of the program can be found at $sigma(n+1)$, |
---|
| 193 | where $n$ is the number of instructions in the program. |
---|