←back to thread

Why SSA Compilers?

(mcyoung.xyz)
182 points transpute | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
noelwelsh ◴[] No.45675013[source]
The shocking truth is that SSA is functional! That's right, the compiler for your favourite imperative language actually optimizes functional programs. See, for example, https://www.jantar.org/papers/chakravarty03perspective.pdf. In fact, SSA, continuation passing style, and ANF are basically the same thing.
replies(3): >>45675172 #>>45675361 #>>45675764 #
pizlonator ◴[] No.45675361[source]
No they're not.

The essence of functional languages is that names are created by lambdas, labmdas are first class, and names might not alias themselves (within the same scope, two references to X may be referencing two instances of X that have different values).

The essence of SSA is that names must-alias themselves (X referenced twice in the same scope will definitely give the same value).

There are lots of other interesting differences.

But perhaps the most important difference is just that when folks implement SSA, or CPS, or ANF, they end up with things that look radically different with little opportunity for skills transfer (if you're an SSA compiler hacker then you'll feel like a fish out of water in a CPS compiler).

Folks like to write these "cute" papers that say things that sound nice but aren't really true.

replies(2): >>45676259 #>>45678499 #
1. titzer ◴[] No.45678499[source]
I've never been more confused than working on Maxine VM's CPS optimizing compiler.