Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0708.2255

A Language for Generic Programming in the Large

Jeremy G. Siek·Andrew Lumsdaine
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generic programming is an effective methodology for developing reusable software libraries. Many programming languages provide generics and have features for describing interfaces, but none completely support the idioms used in generic programming. To address this need we developed the language G. The central feature of G is the concept, a mechanism for organizing constraints on generics that is inspired by the needs of modern C++ libraries. G provides modular type checking and separate compilation (even of generics). These characteristics support modular software development, especially the smooth integration of independently developed components. In this article we present the rationale for the design of G and demonstrate the expressiveness of G with two case studies: porting the Standard Template Library and the Boost Graph Library from C++ to G. The design of G shares much in common with the concept extension proposed for the next C++ Standard (the authors participated in its design) but there are important differences described in this article.

Explore related subjects

cs.PLcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeremy G. Siek, Andrew Lumsdaine. 2007-08-16. A Language for Generic Programming in the Large. https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2255

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Verification of Compiler-to-Accelerator Mappings for Machine Learning Accelerators

To meet the performance needs of modern machine learning (ML) applications, ML compiler frameworks support compiler-to-accelerator mappings that offload parts of application code to operations in specialized hardware accelerators. However, most of these frameworks do not verify these mappings down to the hardware level, potentially resulting in functional mismatches. In this paper we propose BOLT, the first framework for formally verifying the correctness of compiler-to-accelerator mappings for coarse-grained intrinsics in ML accelerators, with respect to a formal hardware semantics. BOLT does not require additional information from the compiler, and verifies the functional equivalence of the application code and the code for the mapped hardware accelerator intrinsic, including handling of complex loop nests and tensor data layouts in hardware. It effectively utilizes a pattern of *aligning* software loops with the hardware, followed by *relating* corresponding data layouts, to enable verification using well-aligned product programs. To support these steps, we propose two custom templates --- the sync-skeleton and the layout-sketch --- to guide users in aligning loops and specifying data layout relationships, respectively. We have developed a proof-of-concept prototype for BOLT and use it to successfully verify the correctness of several complex mappings for two recent open-source ML accelerators.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

Schedules Are Solvable Symbols: Tuning-Free Compilation of Tile Programs on Dataflow Architectures

Modern AI and HPC accelerators increasingly expose dataflow features: software-visible mechanisms for data movement and overlap, such as inter-core communication through the on-chip network and intra-core asynchronous pipelining. These features shift scheduling responsibility from hardware to the compiler, and because placement, movement, and synchronization become software-visible, they also make the performance of static schedules predictable. Yet high performance on such hardware still relies on vendor-engineered kernel libraries or profile-based auto-tuning, whose embedded expert knowledge transfers poorly across architectures and algorithms. We present Loom, a tuning-free symbolic compiler framework for tile-based SPMD programs on spatial dataflow architectures. The central idea is to treat tile-based SPMD compilation as a hardware-explicit static optimization problem. Loom enumerates discrete spatial-mapping and communication candidates while keeping value parameters, such as tiling factors and pipeline knobs, symbolic within each candidate. From an explicit hardware description, it derives symbolic legality constraints and latency expressions, formulates one CP-SAT problem per schedule candidate, and jointly solves inter-core dataflow, intra-core asynchronous scheduling, and block sizes at compile time. On two Tenstorrent generations, Wormhole and Blackhole, Loom matches or exceeds the vendor-optimized TTNN library on GEMM, Flash Attention, and Flash Decode, out of the box and without per-shape profiling or profile-based platform-specific schedule tuning. These results suggest that hardware-derived symbolic compilation provides a retargetable alternative to profiling-based tuning for spatial dataflow architectures while remaining interpretable by keeping optimization decisions traceable to source-level symbols.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2026

ProofGap: Benchmarking Step-Level Formal Reasoning with Local Obligations Derived from Natural-Language Solutions

Existing formal mathematics benchmarks, such as miniF2F, ProofNet, and PutnamBench, primarily evaluate models on constructing complete formal proofs for challenging problems. Because success is measured at the theorem level, these benchmarks offer limited insight into models' step-level formal reasoning. Evaluating this capability separately enables finer-grained diagnosis of model limitations than theorem-level evaluation alone. To fill this evaluation gap, we introduce ProofGap, a fine-grained benchmark for step-level formal reasoning. ProofGap is constructed through a natural-language proof-processing pipeline that decomposes each reasoning step into one or more aligned proof gaps. Applying this pipeline to natural-language solutions to 3,015 exercises in B. P. Demidovich's Problems in Mathematical Analysis yields 26,116 gaps. The benchmark focuses on mathematical analysis, a domain that remains challenging for current models. By supplying the local context and target explicitly, gap completion isolates local formal proof construction from end-to-end proof composition, enabling more precise localization of model failures. Natural-language solutions serve as the provenance of these obligations, while the benchmark task itself starts from an already formalized local context and goal. Beyond benchmarking, the same pipeline may support future proof-verification systems, provided that semantic translation and sequential proof composition are handled reliably.

cs.PL↗