I've noticed that some static analyzers operate on source code, while others operate on bytecode (e.g., FindBugs). I'm sure there are even some that work on object code.
My question is a simple one, what are the advantages and disadvantages of writing different kinds of static analyzers for different levels of analysis?
Under "static analyzers" I'm including linters, bug finders, and even full-blown verifiers.
And by levels of analysis I would include source code, high-level IRs, low-level IRs, bytecode, object code, and compiler plugins that have access to all phases.
These different facets can influence the level at which an analyzer may decide to work:
Designing a static analyzer is a lot of work. It would be a shame not to factor this work for several languages compiled to the same bytecode, especially when the bytecode retains most of the structure of the source program: Java (FindBugs), .NET (various tools related to Code Contracts). In some cases, the common target language was made up for the purpose of analysis although the compilation scheme wasn't following this path.
Related to 1, you may hope that your static analyzer will be a little less costly to write if it works on a normalized version of the program with a minimum number of constructs. When authoring static analyzers, having to write the treatment for repeat until when you have already written while do is a bother. You may structure your analyzer so that several functions are shared for these two cases, but the care-free way to handle this is to translate one to the other, or to translate the source to an intermediate language that only has one of them.
On the other hand as already pointed out in Flash Sheridan's answer, source code contains the most information. For instance, in languages with fuzzy semantics, bugs at the source level may be removed by compilation. C and C++ have numerous "undefined behaviors" where the compiler is allowed to do anything, including generating a program that works accidentally. Fine, you might think, if the bug is not in the executable it's not a problematic bug. But when you ever re-compile the program for another architecture or with the next version of the compiler, the bug may appear again. This is one reason for not doing the analysis after any phase that might potentially remove bugs.
Some properties can only be checked with reasonable precision on compiled code. That includes absence of compiler-introduced bugs as pointed out again by Flash Sheridan, but also worst-case execution time. Similarly, many languages do not let you know what floating-point code does precisely unless you look at the assembly generated by the compiler (this is because existing hardware does not make it convenient for them to guarantee more). The choice is then to write an imprecise source-level analyzer that takes into account all possibilities, or to analyze precisely one particular compilation of a floating-point program, as long as it is understood that it is that precise assembly code that will be executed.
Source code analysis is the most generally useful, of course; sometimes heuristics even need to analyze comments or formatting. But you’re right that even object code analysis can be necessary, e.g., to detect bugs introduced by GCC misfeatures. Thomas Reps, head of GrammaTech and a Wisconsin professor, gave a good talk on this at Stanford a couple of years ago: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~reps/#TOPLAS-WYSINWYX.
Related
Are fewer checks/less rigorous code analysis required to provide development environment error feedback and auto completion for programming languages that are composed largely of human-readable phrases and words (i.e. Python, VB.NET)? This is in contrast to C-style languages, that depend more upon symbols and punctuation for code structure.
I have experience/am responsible for building dozens of language front ends.
Wordy languages vs. punctuationy languages are generally equally hard to parse and statically analyze.
The folks that define languages of either kind have either been decorating them for decades (e.g., COBOL since 1958), or building sophisticated languages (C++, Scala, Ruby) with both complex syntax and complex name resolution and type inference rules; the compiler vendors then proceed to add obscure syntax to support the strange things they do or to provide a customer lock (e.g., MS "managed C++", DLL declarations, etc.). There's the third problem of lousy definitions; the top languages may have precise rules about how they work, but many languages have sloppy definitions (e.g., PHP) which creates dark corner cases that have to be ironed out by painful experimentation with the actual implementation.
C++ has been our worst, esp. with the C++11 committee making a massive recent mess of things. We have full C++ parsers, but are still working on full name resolution for C++11 on top of our C++98 implementation. (The name resolution code is some 250,000 lines of code and its not enough!).
IBM COBOL is a close second; the language is just giant, and there are all sorts of funny name resolution rules ("an unqualified name can refer to a particular name without qualification if the reference is unambiguous" So, is this name an unambiguous reference in this context?).
Once you get past parsing and name/type resolution, then you get into control flow, data flow, points-to analysis, range anlaysis, call graph construction, ... which are generally about the same amount of effort as the earlier phases; we get away with less by having really good libraries that support these tasks.
With all this as background analyses, you can start to do "static analyis" of the smart kind that people want.
Another poster noted that recovering from syntax errors and (emphasis) "continue to generate meaningful error messages". All I can say to this is "Amen, brother". See this SO answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/6657974/120163 for a discussion of what goes wrong when you have "partial programs", which is essentially what you get when syntax error repairs guess at a fix.
Does anyone have any suggestions for assembly file analysis tools? I'm attempting to analyze ARM/Thumb-2 ASM files generated by LLVM (or alternatively GCC) when passed the -S option. I'm particularly interested in instruction statistics at the basic block level, e.g. memory operation counts, etc. I may wind up rolling my own tool in Python, but was curious to see if there were any existing tools before I started.
Update: I've done a little searching, and found a good resource for disassembly tools / hex editors / etc here, but unfortunately it is mainly focused on x86 assembly, and also doesn't include any actual assembly file analyzers.
What you need is a tool for which you can define an assembly language syntax, and then build custom analyzers. You analyzers might be simple ("how much space does an instruction take?") or complex ("How many cycles will this isntruction take to execute?" [which depends on the preceding sequence of instructions and possibly a sophisticated model of the processor you care about]).
One designed specifically to do that is the New Jersey Machine Toolkit. It is really designed to build code generators and debuggers. I suspect it would be good at "instruction byte count". It isn't clear it is good at more sophisticated analyses. And I believe it insists you follow its syntax style, rather than yours.
One not designed specifically to do that, but good at parsing/analyzing langauges in general is our
DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit.
DMS can be given a grammar description for virtually any context free language (that covers most assembly language syntax) and can then parse a specific instance of that grammar (assembly code) into ASTs for further processing. We've done with with several assembly langauges, including the IBM 370, Motorola's 8 bit CPU line, and a rather peculiar DSP, without trouble.
You can specify an attribute grammar (computation over an AST) to DMS easily. These are great way to encode analyses that need just local information, such as "How big is this instruction?". For more complex analysese, you'll need a processor model that is driven from a series of instructions; passing such a machine model the ASTs for individual instructions would be an easy way to apply a machine model to compute more complex things as "How long does this instruction take?".
Other analyses such as control flow and data flow, are provided in generic form by DMS. You can use an attribute evaluator to collect local facts ("control-next for this instruction is...", "data from this instruction flows to,...") and feed them to the flow analyzers to compute global flow facts ("if I execute this instruction, what other instructions might be executed downstream?"..)
You do have to configure DMS for your particular (assembly) language. It is designed to be configured for tasks like these.
Yes, you can likely code all this in Python; after all, its a Turing machine. But likely not nearly as easily.
An additional benefit: DMS is willing to apply transformations to your code, based on your analyses. So you could implement your optimizer with it, too. After all, you need to connect the analysis indication the optimization is safe, to the actual optimization steps.
I have written many disassemblers, including arm and thumb. Not production quality but for the purposes of learning the assembler. For both the ARM and Thumb the ARM ARM (ARM Architectural Reference Manual) has a nice chart from which you can easily count up data operations from load/store, etc. maybe an hours worth of work, maybe two. At least up front, you would end up with data values being counted though.
The other poster may be right, as with the chart I am talking about it should be very simple to write a program to examine the ASCII looking for ldr, str, add, etc. No need to parse everything if you are interested in memory operations counts, etc. Of course the downside is that you are likely not going to be able to examine loops. One function may have a load and store, another may have a load and store but have it wrapped by a loop, causing many more memory operations once executed.
Not knowing what you really are interested in, my guess is you might want to simulate the code and count these sorts of things. I wrote a thumb simulator (thumbulator) that attempts to do just that. (and I have used it to compare llvm execution vs gcc execution when it comes to number of instructions executed, fetches, memory operations, etc) The problem may be that it is thumb only, no ARM no Thumb2. Thumb2 could be added easier than ARM. There exists an armulator from arm, which is in the gdb sources among other places. I cant remember now if it executes thumb2. My understanding is that when arm was using it would accurately tell you these sorts of statistics.
You can plug your statistics into LLVM code generator, it's quite flexible and it is already collecting some stats, which could be used as an example.
I've Googled and poked around the Go website, but I can't find an explanation for Go's extraordinary build times. Are they products of the language features (or lack thereof), a highly optimized compiler, or something else? I'm not trying to promote Go; I'm just curious.
Dependency analysis.
The Go FAQ used to contain the following sentence:
Go provides a model for software
construction that makes dependency
analysis easy and avoids much of the
overhead of C-style include files and
libraries.
While the phrase is not in the FAQ anymore, this topic is elaborated upon in the talk Go at Google, which compares the dependency analysis approach of C/C++ and Go.
That is the main reason for fast compilation. And this is by design.
I think it's not that Go compilers are fast, it's that other compilers are slow.
C and C++ compilers have to parse enormous amounts of headers - for example, compiling C++ "hello world" requires compiling 18k lines of code, which is almost half a megabyte of sources!
$ cpp hello.cpp | wc
18364 40513 433334
Java and C# compilers run in a VM, which means that before they can compile anything, the operating system has to load the whole VM, then they have to be JIT-compiled from bytecode to native code, all of which takes some time.
Speed of compilation depends on several factors.
Some languages are designed to be compiled fast. For example, Pascal was designed to be compiled using a single-pass compiler.
Compilers itself can be optimized too. For example, the Turbo Pascal compiler was written in hand-optimized assembler, which, combined with the language design, resulted in a really fast compiler working on 286-class hardware. I think that even now, modern Pascal compilers (e.g. FreePascal) are faster than Go compilers.
There are multiple reasons why the Go compiler is much faster than most C/C++ compilers:
Top reason: Most C/C++ compilers exhibit exceptionally bad designs (from compilation speed perspective). Also, from compilation speed perspective, some parts of the C/C++ ecosystem (such as editors in which programmers are writing their code) aren't designed with speed-of-compilation in mind.
Top reason: Fast compilation speed was a conscious choice in the Go compiler and also in the Go language
The Go compiler has a simpler optimizer than C/C++ compilers
Unlike C++, Go has no templates and no inline functions. This means that Go doesn't need to perform any template or function instantiation.
The Go compiler generates low-level assembly code sooner and the optimizer works on the assembly code, while in a typical C/C++ compiler the optimization passes work on an internal representation of the original source code. The extra overhead in the C/C++ compiler comes from the fact that the internal representation needs to be generated.
Final linking (5l/6l/8l) of a Go program can be slower than linking a C/C++ program, because the Go compiler is going through all of the used assembly code and maybe it is also doing other extra actions that C/C++ linkers aren't doing
Some C/C++ compilers (GCC) generate instructions in text form (to be passed to the assembler), while the Go compiler generates instructions in binary form. Extra work (but not much) needs to be done in order to transform the text into binary.
The Go compiler targets only a small number of CPU architectures, while the GCC compiler targets a large number of CPUs
Compilers which were designed with the goal of high compilation speed, such as Jikes, are fast. On a 2GHz CPU, Jikes can compile 20000+ lines of Java code per second (and the incremental mode of compilation is even more efficient).
Compilation efficiency was a major design goal:
Finally, it is intended to be fast: it should take at most a few seconds to build a large executable on a single computer. To meet these goals required addressing a number of linguistic issues: an expressive but lightweight type system; concurrency and garbage collection; rigid dependency specification; and so on. FAQ
The language FAQ is pretty interesting in regards to specific language features relating to parsing:
Second, the language has been designed to be easy to analyze and can be parsed without a symbol table.
While most of the above is true, there is one very important point that was not really mentionend: Dependency management.
Go only needs to include the packages that you are importing directly (as those already imported what they need). This is in stark contrast to C/C++, where every single file starts including x headers, which include y headers etc. Bottom line: Go's compiling takes linear time w.r.t to the number of imported packages, where C/C++ take exponential time.
A good test for the translation efficiency of a compiler is self-compilation: how long does it take a given compiler to compile itself? For C++ it takes a very long time (hours?). By comparison, a Pascal/Modula-2/Oberon compiler would compile itself in less than one second on a modern machine [1].
Go has been inspired by these languages, but some of the main reasons for this efficiency include:
A clearly defined syntax that is mathematically sound, for efficient scanning and parsing.
A type-safe and statically-compiled language that uses separate compilation with dependency and type checking across module boundaries, to avoid unnecessary re-reading of header files and re-compiling of other modules - as opposed to independent compilation like in C/C++ where no such cross-module checks are performed by the compiler (hence the need to re-read all those header files over and over again, even for a simple one-line "hello world" program).
An efficient compiler implementation (e.g. single-pass, recursive-descent top-down parsing) - which of course is greatly helped by points 1 and 2 above.
These principles have already been known and fully implemented in the 1970s and 1980s in languages like Mesa, Ada, Modula-2/Oberon and several others, and are only now (in the 2010s) finding their way into modern languages like Go (Google), Swift (Apple), C# (Microsoft) and several others.
Let's hope that this will soon be the norm and not the exception. To get there, two things need to happen:
First, software platform providers such as Google, Microsoft and Apple should start by encouraging application developers to use the new compilation methodology, while enabling them to re-use their existing code base. This is what Apple is now trying to do with the Swift programming language, which can co-exist with Objective-C (since it uses the same runtime environment).
Second, the underlying software platforms themselves should eventually be re-written over time using these principles, while simultaneously redesigning the module hierarchy in the process to make them less monolithic. This is of course a mammoth task and may well take the better part of a decade (if they are courageous enough to actually do it - which I am not at all sure in the case of Google).
In any case, it's the platform that drives language adoption, and not the other way around.
References:
[1] http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/PO.System.pdf, page 6: "The compiler compiles itself in about 3 seconds". This quote is for a low cost Xilinx Spartan-3 FPGA development board running at a clock frequency of 25 MHz and featuring 1 MByte of main memory. From this one can easily extrapolate to "less than 1 second" for a modern processor running at a clock frequency well above 1 GHz and several GBytes of main memory (i.e. several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Xilinx Spartan-3 FPGA board), even when taking I/O speeds into account. Already back in 1990 when Oberon was run on a 25MHz NS32X32 processor with 2-4 MBytes of main memory, the compiler compiled itself in just a few seconds. The notion of actually waiting for the compiler to finish a compilation cycle was completely unknown to Oberon programmers even back then. For typical programs, it always took more time to remove the finger from the mouse button that triggered the compile command than to wait for the compiler to complete the compilation just triggered. It was truly instant gratification, with near-zero wait times. And the quality of the produced code, even though not always completely on par with the best compilers available back then, was remarkably good for most tasks and quite acceptable in general.
Go was designed to be fast, and it shows.
Dependency Management: no header file, you just need to look at the packages that are directly imported (no need to worry about what they import) thus you have linear dependencies.
Grammar: the grammar of the language is simple, thus easily parsed. Although the number of features is reduced, thus the compiler code itself is tight (few paths).
No overload allowed: you see a symbol, you know which method it refers to.
It's trivially possible to compile Go in parallel because each package can be compiled independently.
Note that Go isn't the only language with such features (modules are the norm in modern languages), but they did it well.
Quoting from the book "The Go Programming Language" by Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan:
Go compilation is notably faster than most other compiled languages, even when building from scratch. There are three main reasons for the compiler’s speed. First, all imports must be explicitly listed at the beginning of each source file, so the compiler does not have to read and process an entire file to determine its dependencies. Second, the dependencies of a package form a directed acyclic graph, and because there are no cycles, packages can be compiled separately and perhaps in parallel. Finally, the object file for a compiled Go package records export information not just for the package itself, but for its dependencies too. When compiling a package, the compiler must read one object file for each import but need not look beyond these files.
The basic idea of compilation is actually very simple. A recursive-descent parser, in principle, can run at I/O bound speed. Code generation is basically a very simple process. A symbol table and basic type system is not something that requires a lot of computation.
However, it is not hard to slow down a compiler.
If there is a preprocessor phase, with multi-level include directives, macro definitions, and conditional compilation, as useful as those things are, it is not hard to load it down. (For one example, I'm thinking of the Windows and MFC header files.) That is why precompiled headers are necessary.
In terms of optimizing the generated code, there is no limit to how much processing can be added to that phase.
Simply ( in my own words ), because the syntax is very easy ( to analyze and to parse )
For instance, no type inheritance means, not problematic analysis to find out if the new type follows the rules imposed by the base type.
For instance in this code example: "interfaces" the compiler doesn't go and check if the intended type implement the given interface while analyzing that type. Only until it's used ( and IF it is used ) the check is performed.
Other example, the compiler tells you if you're declaring a variable and not using it ( or if you are supposed to hold a return value and you're not )
The following doesn't compile:
package main
func main() {
var a int
a = 0
}
notused.go:3: a declared and not used
This kinds of enforcements and principles make the resulting code safer, and the compiler doesn't have to perform extra validations that the programmer can do.
At large all these details make a language easier to parse which result in fast compilations.
Again, in my own words.
Go imports dependencies once for all files, so the import time doesn't increase exponentially with project size.
Simpler linguistics means interpreting them takes less computing.
What else?
It seems to me that the most invaluable thing about a static/strongly-typed programming language is that it helps refactoring: if/when you change any API, then the compiler will tell you what that change has broken.
I can imagine writing code in a runtime/weakly-typed language ... but I can't imagine refactoring without the compiler's help, and I can't imagine writing tens of thousands of lines of code without refactoring.
Is this true?
I think you're conflating when types are checked with how they're checked. Runtime typing isn't necessarily weak.
The main advantage of static types is exactly what you say: they're exhaustive. You can be confident all call sites conform to the type just by letting the compiler do it's thing.
The main limitation of static types is that they're limited in the constraints they can express. This varies by language, with most languages having relatively simple type systems (c, java), and others with extremely powerful type systems (haskell, cayenne).
Because of this limitation types on their own are not sufficient. For example, in java types are more or less restricted to checking type names match. This means the meaning of any constraint you want checked has to be encoded into a naming scheme of some sort, hence the plethora of indirections and boiler plate common to java code. C++ is a little better in that templates allow a bit more expressiveness, but don't come close to what you can do with dependent types. I'm not sure what the downsides to the more powerful type systems are, though clearly there must be some or more people would be using them in industry.
Even if you're using static typing, chances are it's not expressive enough to check everything you care about, so you'll need to write tests too. Whether static typing saves you more effort than it requires in boilerplate is a debate that's raged for ages and that I don't think has a simple answer for all situations.
As to your second question:
How can we re-factor safely in a runtime typed language?
The answer is tests. Your tests have to cover all the cases that matter. Tools can help you in gauging how exhaustive your tests are. Coverage checking tools let you know wether lines of code are covered by the tests or not. Test mutation tools (jester, heckle) can let you know if your tests are logically incomplete. Acceptance tests let you know what you've written matches requirements, and lastly regression and performance tests ensure that each new version of the product maintains the quality of the last.
One of the great things about having proper testing in place vs relying on elaborate type indirections is that debugging becomes much simpler. When running the tests you get specific failed assertions within tests that clearly express what they're doing, rather than obtuse compiler error statements (think c++ template errors).
No matter what tools you use: writing code you're confident in will require effort. It most likely will require writing a lot of tests. If the penalty for bugs is very high, such as aerospace or medical control software, you may need to use formal mathematical methods to prove the behavior of your software, which makes such development extremely expensive.
I totally agree with your sentiment. The very flexibility that dynamically typed languages are supposed to be good at is actually what makes the code very hard to maintain. Really, is there such a thing as a program that continues to work if the data types are changed in a non trivial way without actually changing the code?
In the mean time, you could check the type of variable being passed, and somehow fail if its not the expected type. You'd still have to run your code to root out those cases, but at least something would tell you.
I think Google's internal tools actually do a compilation and probably type checking to their Javascript. I wish I had those tools.
To start, I'm a native Perl programmer so on the one hand I've never programmed with the net of static types. OTOH I've never programmed with them so I can't speak to their benefits. What I can speak to is what its like to refactor.
I don't find the lack of static types to be a problem wrt refactoring. What I find a problem is the lack of a refactoring browser. Dynamic languages have the problem that you don't really know what the code is really going to do until you actually run it. Perl has this more than most. Perl has the additional problem of having a very complicated, almost unparsable, syntax. Result: no refactoring tools (though they're working very rapidly on that). The end result is I have to refactor by hand. And that is what introduces bugs.
I have tests to catch them... usually. I do find myself often in front of a steaming pile of untested and nigh untestable code with the chicken/egg problem of having to refactor the code in order to test it, but having to test it in order to refactor it. Ick. At this point I have to write some very dumb, high level "does the program output the same thing it did before" sort of tests just to make sure I didn't break something.
Static types, as envisioned in Java or C++ or C#, really only solve a small class of programming problems. They guarantee your interfaces are passed bits of data with the right label. But just because you get a Collection doesn't mean that Collection contains the data you think it does. Because you get an integer doesn't mean you got the right integer. Your method takes a User object, but is that User logged in?
Classic example: public static double sqrt(double a) is the signature for the Java square root function. Square root doesn't work on negative numbers. Where does it say that in the signature? It doesn't. Even worse, where does it say what that function even does? The signature only says what types it takes and what it returns. It says nothing about what happens in between and that's where the interesting code lives. Some people have tried to capture the full API by using design by contract, which can broadly be described as embedding run-time tests of your function's inputs, outputs and side effects (or lack thereof)... but that's another show.
An API is far more than just function signatures (if it wasn't, you wouldn't need all that descriptive prose in the Javadocs) and refactoring is far more even than just changing the API.
The biggest refactoring advantage a statically typed, statically compiled, non-dynamic language gives you is the ability to write refactoring tools to do quite complex refactorings for you because it knows where all the calls to your methods are. I'm pretty envious of IntelliJ IDEA.
I would say refactoring goes beyond what the compiler can check, even in statically-typed languages. Refactoring is just changing a programs internal structure without affecting the external behavior. Even in dynamic languages, there are still things that you can expect to happen and test for, you just lose a little bit of assistance from the compiler.
One of the benefits of using var in C# 3.0 is that you can often change the type without breaking any code. The type needs to still look the same - properties with the same names must exist, methods with the same or similar signature must still exist. But you can really change to a very different type, even without using something like ReSharper.
I was thinking more about the programming language i am designing. and i was wondering, what are ways i could minimize its compile time?
Your main problem today is I/O. Your CPU is many times faster than main memory and memory is about 1000 times faster than accessing the hard disk.
So unless you do extensive optimizations to the source code, the CPU will spend most of the time waiting for data to be read or written.
Try these rules:
Design your compiler to work in several, independent steps. The goal is to be able to run each step in a different thread so you can utilize multi-core CPUs. It will also help to parallelize the whole compile process (i.e. compile more than one file at the same time)
It will also allow you to load many source files in advance and preprocess them so the actual compile step can work faster.
Try to allow to compile files independently. For example, create a "missing symbol pool" for the project. Missing symbols should not cause compile failures as such. If you find a missing symbol somewhere, remove it from the pool. When all files have been compiled, check that the pool is empty.
Create a cache with important information. For example: File X uses symbols from file Y. This way, you can skip compiling file Z (which doesn't reference anything in Y) when Y changes. If you want to go one step further, put all symbols which are defined anywhere in a pool. If a file changes in such a way that symbols are added/removed, you will know immediately which files are affected (without even opening them).
Compile in the background. Start a compiler process which checks the project directory for changes and compile them as soon as the user saves the file. This way, you will only have to compile a few files each time instead of everything. In the long run, you will compile much more but for the user, turnover times will be much shorter (= time user has to wait until she can run the compiled result after a change).
Use a "Just in time" compiler (i.e. compile a file when it is used, for example in an import statement). Projects are then distributed in source form and compiled when run for the first time. Python does this. To make this perform, you can precompile the library during the installation of your compiler.
Don't use header files. Keep all information in a single place and generate header files from the source if you have to. Maybe keep the header files just in memory and never save them to disk.
what are ways i could minimize its compile time?
No compilation (interpreted language)
Delayed (just in time) compilation
Incremental compilation
Precompiled header files
I've implemented a compiler myself, and ended up having to look at this once people started batch feeding it hundreds of source files. I was quite suprised what I found out.
It turns out that the most important thing you can optimize is not your grammar. It's not your lexical analyzer or your parser either. Instead, the most important thing in terms of speed is the code that reads in your source files from disk. I/O's to disk are slow. Really slow. You can pretty much measure your compiler's speed by the number of disk I/Os it performs.
So it turns out that the absolute best thing you can do to speed up a compiler is to read the entire file into memory in one big I/O, do all your lexing, parsing, etc. from RAM, and then write out the result to disk in one big I/O.
I talked with one of the head guys maintaining Gnat (GCC's Ada compiler) about this, and he told me that he actually used to put everything he could onto RAM disks so that even his file I/O was really just RAM reads and writes.
In most languages (pretty well everything other than C++), compiling individual compilation units is quite fast.
Binding/linking is often what's slow - the linker has to reference the whole program rather than just a single unit.
C++ suffers as - unless you use the pImpl idiom - it requires the implementation details of every object and all inline functions to compile client code.
Java (source to bytecode) suffers because the grammar doesn't differentiate objects and classes - you have to load the Foo class to see if Foo.Bar.Baz is the Baz field of object referenced by the Bar static field of the Foo class, or a static field of the Foo.Bar class. You can make the change in the source of the Foo class between the two, and not change the source of the client code, but still have to recompile the client code, as the bytecode differentiates between the two forms even though the syntax doesn't. AFAIK Python bytecode doesn't differentiate between the two - modules are true members of their parents.
C++ and C suffer if you include more headers than are required, as the preprocessor has to process each header many times, and the compiler compile them. Minimizing header size and complexity helps, suggesting better modularity would improve compilation time. It's not always possible to cache header compilation, as what definitions are present when the header is preprocessed can alter its semantics, and even syntax.
C suffers if you use the preprocessor a lot, but the actual compilation is fast; much of C code uses typedef struct _X* X_ptr to hide implementation better than C++ does - a C header can easily consist of typedefs and function declarations, giving better encapsulation.
So I'd suggest making your language hide implementation details from client code, and if you are an OO language with both instance members and namespaces, make the syntax for accessing the two unambiguous. Allow true modules, so client code only has to be aware of the interface rather than implementation details. Don't allow preprocessor macros or other variation mechanism to alter the semantics of referenced modules.
Here are some performance tricks that we've learned by measuring compilation speed and what affects it:
Write a two-pass compiler: characters to IR, IR to code. (It's easier to write a three-pass compiler that goes characters -> AST -> IR -> code, but it's not as fast.)
As a corollary, don't have an optimizer; it's hard to write a fast optimizer.
Consider generating bytecode instead of native machine code. The virtual machine for Lua is a good model.
Try a linear-scan register allocator or the simple register allocator that Fraser and Hanson used in lcc.
In a simple compiler, lexical analysis is often the greatest performance bottleneck. If you are writing C or C++ code, use re2c. If you're using another language (which you will find much more pleasant), read the paper aboug re2c and apply the lessons learned.
Generate code using maximal munch, or possibly iburg.
Surprisingly, the GNU assembler is a bottleneck in many compilers. If you can generate binary directly, do so. Or check out the New Jersey Machine-Code Toolkit.
As noted above, design your language to avoid anything like #include. Either use no interface files or precompile your interface files. This tactic dramatically reduces the burdern on the lexer, which as I said is often the biggest bottleneck.
Here's a shot..
Use incremental compilation if your toolchain supports it.
(make, visual studio, etc).
For example, in GCC/make, if you have many files to compile, but only make changes in one file, then only that one file is compiled.
Eiffel had an idea of different states of frozen, and recompiling didn't necessarily mean that the whole class was recompiled.
How much can you break up the compliable modules, and how much do you care to keep track of them?
Make the grammar simple and unambiguous, and therefore quick and easy to parse.
Place strong restrictions on file inclusion.
Allow compilation without full information whenever possible (eg. predeclaration in C and C++).
One-pass compilation, if possible.
One thing surprisingly missing in answers so far: make you you're doing a context free grammar, etc. Have a good hard look at languages designed by Wirth such as Pascal & Modula-2. You don't have to reimplement Pascal, but the grammar design is custom made for fast compiling. Then see if you can find any old articles about the tricks Anders pulled implementing Turbo Pascal. Hint: table driven.
it depends on what language/platform you're programming for. for .NET development, minimise the number of projects that you have in your solution.
In the old days you could get dramatic speedups by setting up a RAM drive and compiling there. Don't know if this still holds true, though.
In C++ you could use distributed compilation with tools like Incredibuild
A simple one: make sure the compiler can natively take advantage of multi-core CPUs.
Make sure that everything can be compiled the fist time you try to compile it. E.g. ban forward references.
Use a context free grammar so that you can find the correct parse tree without a symbol table.
Make sure that the semantics can be deduced from the syntax so you can construct the correct AST directly rather than by mucking with a parse tree and symbol table.
How serious a compiler is this?
Unless the syntax is pretty convoluted, the parser should be able to run no more than 10-100 times slower than just indexing through the input file characters.
Similarly, code generation should be limited by output formatting.
You shouldn't be hitting any performance issues unless you're doing a big, serious compiler, capable of handling mega-line apps with lots of header files.
Then you need to worry about precompiled headers, optimization passes, and linking.
I haven't seen much work done for minimizing the compile time. But some ideas do come to mind:
Keep the grammar simple. Convoluted grammar will increase your compile time.
Try making use of parallelism, either using multicore GPU or CPU.
Benchmark a modern compiler and see what are the bottlenecks and what you can do in you compiler/language to avoid them.
Unless you are writing a highly specialized language, compile time is not really an issue..
Make a build system that doesn't suck!
There's a huge amount of programs out there with maybe 3 source files that take under a second to compile, but before you get that far you'd have to sit through an automake script that takes about 2 minutes checking things like the size of an int. And if you go to compile something else a minute later, it makes you sit through almost exactly the same set of tests.
So unless your compiler is doing awful things to the user like changing the size of its ints or changing basic function implementations between runs, just dump that info out to a file and let them get it in a second instead of 2 minutes.