WO1996011437A1 - Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another - Google Patents
Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO1996011437A1 WO1996011437A1 PCT/US1995/013260 US9513260W WO9611437A1 WO 1996011437 A1 WO1996011437 A1 WO 1996011437A1 US 9513260 W US9513260 W US 9513260W WO 9611437 A1 WO9611437 A1 WO 9611437A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- tree
- source
- fragment
- target
- doubly
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/30—Creation or generation of source code
- G06F8/33—Intelligent editors
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/40—Transformation of program code
- G06F8/41—Compilation
- G06F8/42—Syntactic analysis
- G06F8/423—Preprocessors
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/40—Transformation of program code
- G06F8/41—Compilation
- G06F8/48—Incremental compilation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/40—Transformation of program code
- G06F8/51—Source to source
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y10—TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC
- Y10S—TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y10S707/00—Data processing: database and file management or data structures
- Y10S707/99941—Database schema or data structure
- Y10S707/99942—Manipulating data structure, e.g. compression, compaction, compilation
Definitions
- This invention relates to automated translation between high-level computer programming languages.
- This invention relates particularly to improved preservation in a target high-level language of preprocessor characteristics (such as macros, source file inclusion structure, and commentary) contained in a source high-level language.
- preprocessor characteristics such as macros, source file inclusion structure, and commentary
- a feature of this invention is that preprocessor characteristics need not necessarily be processed by a preprocessor.
- High-level computer languages enable computer programmers to communicate with computers. Statements programmers write in a computer language form a computer program which in turn instructs a computer to perform a set of tasks. "Compilation” is the manner in which high-level computer language programs are converted into instructions, generally called machine code, which the computer can understand and execute. A compiler is a computer program which performs this translation.
- each brand of computer understands a different set of machine code instructions. Therefore, a different compiler must exist for each computer to translate a high-level computer language. Because compilers for every high-level computer language do not exist on every brand of computer, not every program can execute on every machine. Programmers can only write programs in the languages for which compilers exist for their target computers.
- Automatic translators may be used in either of two distinct strategies to solve the problem of an unavailable compiler for a particular language on a particular computer.
- programmers may continue to write and maintain programs in the original source language.
- the translator converts these programs into intermediate code in a target language.
- An available compiler for the target language then converts this intermediate code into machine code which the target computer can understand.
- the target language is usually a standard widely available language, the translator does not hav to produce readable or maintainable source code.
- the second strategy requires a translator to produce readable and maintainable code. Programmers going this route want to abandon the original language in favor of the target. Building this type of translator is a more difficult task and i the focus of this invention.
- Translators have also attempted to transform the style of programs to make them more readable. Others have used knowledge-based systems to extract the meaning of the source program and rewrite it in the target language. However, prior art translators have universally failed adequately to preserve programming constructs generally known as preprocessor characteristics. Many high-level languages include a preprocessor language separate from but coexisting with the language itself. Characteristics (which are also herein referred to as invocation expressions) of the preprocessor language may include a conditional compilation mechanism, a macro mechanism, a source inclusion mechanism, a variety of compiler directives, and a comment mechanism. At the risk of oversimplification, the preprocessor allows programmers to use shorthand expressions for longer constructs. Thus, invoking the shorthand expression triggers a text substitution when the source code is run through the preprocessor.
- a general object of the present invention is to provide a method and apparatus for automatically -translating the source code from one high level computer language to the source code of another language.
- a specific object of the present invention is to provide a method of translating code from a source computer language to a target while preserving the preprocessor characteristics of the code as written in the source language.
- Another object of the present invention is to provide a data structure useful for automated translation, whether it be from one computer language to another or from a natural language to another.
- the data structure termed a doubly-rooted tree, combines two prior art tree data structures so that their leaves coincide. By creating and filling the doubly-rooted tree in a specified manner, and then translating it to a second doubly- rooted tree, preprocessor characteristics of a computer language may be preserved while translating other statements, constructs, and expressions.
- a doubly-rooted tree may serve as the basis for more complex data structures. For example, additional trees may be joined at the leaves to form an N-rooted tree. Such a linked set of trees has computer database applications.
- FIG. 1 depicts a prior art tree structure.
- FIG. 2 depicts a doubly-rooted tree data structure, joined at the leaves, in accordance with the present invention.
- FIG. 2A is a simplified block diagram of a computing system for use with the present invention.
- FIG. 3 is a block diagram depicting data flow through a simple prior art compiler.
- FIG. 4 is a block diagram depicting data flow through an automated source code translator in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- FIG. 5 is a flowchart describing a method for building a first tree in a doubly-rooted tree in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. The method builds the tree from the top down in depth first traversal order.
- FIG. 6 is a flowchart describing the building of a second tree in the doubly rooted tree introduced in Fig. 5, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- An inorder traversal of the first tree yields an ordered set of leaves that is input to the parser 623.
- the method builds the tree from the bottom up in depth first traversal order.
- FIG. 7 is a flowchart describing the translation of a second tree in a first doubly rooted tree to a corresponding tree in a second doubly rooted tree in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- FIG. 8 is a flowchart describing the translation of a first tree in the first doubly rooted tree referred to in FIG. 5 to a corresponding tree in a second doubly rooted tree in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- FIG. 9 depicts an example fragment tree and syntax tree, using a high-level computer language, pTAL, as the source language.
- FIG. 10 depicts the example pTAL source fragment tree and source syntax tree, including the leaves (tokens) that link them, introduced in FIG. 9. It also shows a target syntax tree of another high-level computer language, C++, that represents a translation of the source syntax tree and half of the target doubly-rooted tree.
- FIG. 11 depicts the source doubly-rooted tree and the target doubly-rooted tree introduced in FIG. 10, after the translation of the source fragment tree. All four trees are illustrated: the example pTAL source fragment tree and source syntax tree as well as se antically equivalent C++ target fragment tree and target syntax tree.
- This invention implements a strategy for translating legacy software to a different high-level programming language.
- This translation process preserves text preprocessor mechanisms such as macros, conditionally compiled regions of code, and source inclusion.
- This section specifically discusses the design of the Rosetta Translator, which implements this strategy.
- the Rosetta Translator translates from Tandem's portable Transaction Application Language (pTAL) to C++.
- Programmers continue to write and maintain programs in the original source language, and use the translated source as intermediate code.
- These translators need not address the problems inherent in producing readable and maintainable code: preserving macro definitions and program structure, and retaining meaningful naming, comment placement, and format.
- pTAL, C++, and many high-level programming languages consist of a preprocessor language separate from but coexisting with a high-level language.
- the preprocessor language might include a conditional compilation mechanism, a macro mechanism, a source inclusion mechanism, a variety of compiler directives, and a comment mechanism.
- the preprocessor language need not be implemented by a separate preprocessor..
- the Rosetta Translator not only translates high-level language constructs but also preprocessor constructs; preserving the latter is a difficult but important part of producing readable and maintainable code.
- the source language, pTAL is a proprietary block-structured systems programming language, originally derived from Algol-60.
- the vast majority of Tandem's system code was written in pTAL or its precursor, TAL.
- the Rosetta Translator uses pTAL as its source language instead of TAL because pTAL excludes various architecture- specific TAL features that are not available in standard programming languages, such as assembly language code statements 0 and arbitrary register manipulation. All TAL code will eventually migrate to pTAL.
- the translated code is dominated by the C language subset of C++, but includes occasional constructs specific to C++.
- the Rosetta Translator does not generate object-oriented code.
- C++ is 5 a much better target language than C for a number of reasons, including strong type checking and easy emulation of several important pTAL language constructs, and the opportunity to use the o ject-oriented paradigm in the future.
- the ideas presented here apply to other programming languages containing preprocessor 0 mechanisms that one would have a practical need to translate.
- Virtual Source 5 A program's virtual source is a stream of tokens that a compiler parses to create a syntax tree representing that program.
- Virtual source production mecnamsas are used by a scanner or preprocessor to create virtual source.
- Virtual source production mecnanisms available in pTAL and C++ are:
- a virtual source production mechanism can appear anywhere in a source file and yield any portion of a syntactic construct; it need not honor syntactic construct boundaries.
- Virtual source does not necessarily exist in textual form in any single source file; the token stream is created by a series of source inclusions, macro expansions, and macro formal parameter substitutions.
- the Rosetta Translator translates virtual source production mechanisms as well as high-level language constructs. It does not merely expand the virtual source with a preprocessor before performing its translation.
- the file structure of the program is also preserved.
- Fragment A "fragment" represents the result of an invocation of a virtual source production mechanism: source file inclusion, macro expansion, or macro formal parameter substitution.
- Each fragment is linked to the tokens that make up its invocation syntax: a macro formal parameter, a macro invocation (including the parameter list) , or a token representing a source inclusion directive.
- Each fragment contains the tokens composing its expansion: a macro actual parameter, a macro body, or an included file.
- the tokens composing the invocation syntax are themselves contained in another fragment, which represents its context of use. For example, a macro invocation can be embedded in a macro body, or in the main program file.
- Fragments can be divided into "partitions" by compiler directives. Because some compiler directives affect the semantics of the program, and some determine what text is scanned (for example, conditional compilation directives) , directive boundaries must be preserved. Partitions are bounded by:
- a fragment tree represents each source inclusion, macro expansion, and macro actual parameter substitution that was employed to create the virtual source.
- a static fragment is a mold from which fragments are made; each fragment is an instance of a static fragment.
- a source file is a static fragment, and it may contain nested static fragments.
- the Rosetta Translator pieces together textual representations of C++ fragments to form C++ output files, fitting a textual representation of a macro body, for example, into its definition. Because the Rosetta Translator's design requires that each source language macro maps to exactly one target language macro, it checks the textual consistency of every macro use, to ensure that the macro text "works" in all contexts of use. It checks the textual consistency between fragments generated during previous translation sessions and those generated during the "current” session, to ensure that pieces of an included file "work” in all contexts of use.
- fragment tree as a means of representing macro invocations, macro actual parameter substitutions, and source inclusions in a program. It gives an overview of the translator phases, including steps to preserve the fragment tree. It then describes in detail the structure of the fragment tree and gives a fragment tree translation method.
- the Rosetta Translator behaves like a normal compiler, with a few additional steps.
- a pTAL syntax tree represents the syntactic structure of the virtual source. Tokens appear on the leaves of the otherwise traditional abstract svntax tree. Each token is also associated with a fragment, indicating which virtual source production mechanism brought it into the virtual source. The syntax tree and the fragment tree are said to be "joined at the tokens. " The scanning phase builds the pTAL fragment tree. The pTAL syntax tree is translated to a C++ syntax tree. An additional translation step converts the pTAL fragment tree to the C++ fragment tree.
- each C++ macro invocation fragment or source inclusion fragment contains a sequence of C++ tokens that represents text belonging in that macro body or included file.
- the source generator pieces together translated instances to form a generated text file. Tokens and comments are formatted (assigned file positions) based on the syntax that contains them, taking cues from the formatting of the corresponding source language construct.
- FIG. 4 depicts a general diagram of the Rosetta Translator's data flow.
- pTAL Code Generated C++ Code define less(x) - a ⁇ x#; idefine less(x) a ⁇ x while less (42) do ... while (less (42)) ...
- FIG. 9 illustrates the fragment tree that represents the pTAL while loop from the previous example.
- the tokens in the virtual source are in both the fragment tree and the syntax tree.
- a pTAL fragment is semantically equivalent to the C++ fragment to which i t translates .
- Tokens in a pTAL fragment must be translated in their context or contexts of use . Macros cannot be translated immediately at their point of definition because, even if the text could be parsed, semantic analysis would not be possible.
- Macros Only when the macro is expanded in context is the semantic information necessary for translation available. Macros are, therefore, translated after their invocations have been expanded and analyzed. The actual parameters of a parameterized macro and regions of included text are processed analogously. The bodies of unused macros are not translated, and unused actual parameters are not translated.
- a pTAL fragment should translate to the same C++ text in every context of use .
- a macro body is translated once for each expansion in the virtual source.
- the Rosetta Translator chooses to produce exactly one target language macro for each source language macro; this design decision requires that the translation of every instance of a macro expansion be textually identical.
- the Rosetta Translator can only be sure that the translation of a macro "works" in every context of use if every instance of the macro expansion translates to textually identical generated code.
- a textual mismatch might occur, for example, when the syntax expressing two distinct operations is the same in the source language but different in the target language. The pun (one phrase with two distinct meanings) does not translate.
- Strategies for avoiding textual mismatches and for coping with mismatches that cannot be prevented are discussed later in this document. The same considerations apply to code included from another file and to macro actual parameters.
- Construct translations should not blur fragment boundaries .
- Each pTAL syntactic construct is mapped to a corresponding C++ syntactic construct, and pTAL tokens within that construct are mapped to corresponding C++ tokens within the corresponding C++ construct. While the tokens in the resultant token stream need not maintain the same relative ordering- as the pTAL tokens that generated them, fragment boundaries are points of ordering enforcement. Each token in a given C++ fragment is generated from some token in the same pTAL fragment. Strategies for avoiding fragment boundary violations and for coping with violations that cannot be prevented are discussed later in this document.
- the Rosetta Translator translates the source language syntax tree, generating an equivalent target language syntax tree.
- the translation routines for most source language constructs generate idioms in the target language when appropriate.
- the Rosetta Translator associates each generated target language token with one source language token.
- the "translation" of a source language token creates a target language token and establishes this association.
- the choice of which pTAL token is associated with a given C++ token determines the fragment in which that C++ token belongs: the C++ counterpart of the pTAL fragment in which the associated pTAL token resides.
- Some constructs allow a one-to-one mapping from source language tokens to target language tokens. If tokens do not map one-to-one, the Rosetta Translator chooses token mappings that maximize "semantic congruence," that is, it tries to associate tokens with their logical counterparts. Choosing appropriate mappings helps ensure meaningful macro translations. The collection of tokens contained in a macro body (or macro actual parameter) in the source language tends to generate a collection with the same meaning in the target language.
- FIG. 10 illustrates part of a pTAL syntax tree and fragment tree, joined by the pTAL tokens making up the virtual source.
- the dashed lines depict links between each C++ token and the pTAL token that generated it.
- the tokens in the relational expression map one-to-one from the source language to the target language.
- the source language "while" keyword generates the target language parentheses tokens in- addition to the target language "while” token.
- the Rosetta Translator traverses the target language virtual source token stream, and builds the C++ fragment tree, based on the position in the pTAL fragment tree of the source language token associated with each target language token encountered in the virtual source stream.
- the method given in this section builds a target language fragment tree. Operations are as follows:
- Attach(x, y) Attach x to y: y becomes the parent of x. x is added positionally after pre-existing siblings.
- Translate(n) Translate n (token or fragment) to the target language version of the object, and return the translation.
- Translation (n) Return the latest translation of the fragment n; nil if it has not been translated.
- Paren (n) If n is a token, return the fragment in which ⁇ resides. If n is a fragment, return the invocation syntax of the fragment (macro name token, for. example) .
- Is ⁇ pen( ⁇ ) Return true if the fragment n is open in the target fragment tree.
- the "open" nodes in the target language fragment tree include the ancestors of the last token that was added to the fragment tree. Adding a child to a fragment "closes" nodes that are no longer ancestors of the latest token added. Begin by translating the main source include fragment. This fragment is initially open.
- TargetToken Create new fragments and invocation syntax until TargetToken is connected to the tree. */ WHILE (NOT IsOpen (Translation (SourceFrag) ) ) BEGIN TargetFrag - Translate (SourceFrag)
- TargetFrag Translation (SourceFrag) Attach (TargetlnvSyntax, TargetFrag) ; END ELSE END FOR
- the target fragment tree usually has a shape similar to the source fragment tree, this method allows for code replication and reordering to produce new subtrees or subtrees in new places (when, for example, the replicated or reordered code represents an entire macro expansion) .
- the Rosetta Translator preserves the semantics of the original code only if the code in the control variable of the for loop executes without side-effects. This issue is independent of the presence or absence of macro invocations in a for loop; the issue relates to the replication of code.
- the Rosetta Translator was conceived as a way to reduce and eventually eliminate dependence on a proprietary systems programming language while supporting huge bodies of legacy software. To that end, the Rosetta Translator performs highly automatic translation from Tandem's portable Transaction Application Language (pTAL) to a subset of C++.
- the translated software is more portable and is compatible with commercially- available programming tools. New software can make use of the object-oriented programming paradigm while interoperating with legacy code.
- the resulting C++ source code is sufficiently readable and maintainable that the original pTAL source code can be retired.
- the Rosetta Translator has several requirements:
- Rosetta Translator must translate an entire product in a short elapsed time.
- the Rosetta Translator must be "highly automated,” but not necessarily completely automated.
- Rosetta Toolset includes a set of problem analysis tools to speed elapsed translation time.
- Automatic source-to-source translators can be criticized for automatically translating only a subset of the source language or for generating obfuscatory code, and source-to-source translators that decline to translate some features of a language can be criticized as useless when the source code is very large.
- the Rosetta Translator is an industrial strength toolset that must not substantially subset the source language for the convenience of the translator. It also must make use of commonly used idiomatic features of the target language, and must avoid translations that, while strictly safe, are not particularly readable or maintainable.
- the Rosetta Translator can take cues from a human expert to help it avoid generating awkward code.
- the translation process must allow incremental translation on a module -by -module basis .
- a product must be able to export translated interfaces before translating all of its implementation modules, and it must be able to phase translation of the product, one module at a time.
- the resultant C++ code must be interoperable with pTAL code.
- the resultant code must faithfully reproduce the semantics of the original program.
- the resul tant code must be readable and maintainable .
- the generated program must be as readable and maintainable as the original code to a programmer familiar with both languages and the product that the code implements.
- a programmer familiar with the product must find that after translation, he or she still holds a valid mental model of the implementation.
- Identifiers must be mapped to reasonable spellings.
- Comments must appear adjacent to the code that they describe, even when that code has been moved. Patterns or pictures embedded in end- of-line comments must be preserved to the extent possible.
- the format of the code must appear natural in the target language, though some aspects of the format might follow the style and alignment of the original code, reflecting the preferences of the author. Macros defined in the source code must, to the extent possible, encapsulate the same meaning in the translated code.
- the Rosetta Translator generates output that looks natural in its new language but does not significantly alter the design of the program.
- One of the great investments that software companies must make is in software maintenance, and one of the great assets that a software maintainer might have is familiarity with the implementation details of a large and complex software system.
- Substantial redesign is best done by the programmer, who is not only best qualified to make a complex judgement call, but can later make good use of the experience of doing so.
- the Rosetta Translator generates references to macros, such as the invocation expression "_redef” in this example, that encapsulate the emulation of difficult pTAL features. These macros reside in an include file, "rosetta.h”.
- the Rosetta Translator emulates the style of the pTAL code.
- the Rosetta Translator uses the following strategies, each where it is most useful:
- the Rosetta Toolset offers tools to .make that activity less tedious and less prone to error, and to make optimal use of a programmer's time.
- the Translator detects when a specific kind of information would be helpful and issues an appropriate diagnostic.
- a programmer familiar with the source code responds to the Rosetta Translator's request for semantic hints by embedding a special comment in the source code from which the Rosetta Translator can glean the extra information it needs. Supplying hints this way does not disturb the behavior of the source code and does not require extending the source language's compiler.
- the information is also retained in the original source code for future retranslations.
- the problem analysis tools simplify the tasks performed by the human expert by inserting the desired special comment in exactly the right place.
- the pTAL language has no declarations of unsigned variables, but instead offers unsigned operators that carry out unsigned arithmetic.
- a user can mark a pTAL variable as unsigned by inserting a particular comment into the variable declaration.
- the Rosetta Translator translates it as a true unsigned variable, obviating the need for type casts to force unsigned operations.
- the next example depicts the translation of an unsigned operation.
- the main disadvantage is that the software maintainer must learn how to use the special macros. For example, bit extraction and deposit operations on integers are supplied as macros in an include file, rosetta.h. The next example depicts the translation of bit extraction and bit deposit.
- the target language was extended to support some special functional requirements of Tandem systems software.
- the target language was not extended merely to accommodate automatic translation.
- the Rosetta Translator translates systems programming constructs from the source language to target language extensions. For example, pragmas were added to produce similar data layout between C++ and pTAL.
- Source-to-source translators can use one of several strategies for translating comments that appear interspersed in the source language program:
- Translator's strategy is to bind comments closely to a token and to translate the comments associated with each token when the token is mapped to the target language.
- One disadvantage is that when source language tokens do not correspond one to one with target language tokens, the translations of syntactic constructs must explicitly specify comment mapping. This strategy trades off complexity for control, and increase control is desirable to preserve appropriate comment placement.
- the Rosetta Translator is able to preserve end-of-lin comments in their original form, which is especially useful whe the information contained therein is tabular or pictorial i nature. All comments remain associated with the tokens the describe, even if part of the enclosing construct must be moved.
- the appearance of the generated code can benefit fro construct translation routines that create comment association that might differ from token associations. For example som construct translations appear more natural if the comments tha appear before the first source language token in a particula construct also appear before the first target language token i the translated construct, even if the first source token doe not map to the first target token.
- the Rosetta Translator's design requires that eac source language macro maps to exactly one target language macro it checks that every macro use is textually identical, to ensur that the macro text "works" in all contexts of use. It also checks included files. The scope of a macro actual parameter is limited to the macro body itself, so the Rosetta Translator need only check that all expansions of a formal parameter within a given macro expansion are textually identical.
- the following example illustrates an error condition: the translation of two expansions of the same macro result in different macro body text. All instances of a macro body must be checked for consistency before output source generation.
- the Rosetta Translator generates references to macros, such as "_redef" and "_tobitfield” in this example, that encapsulate the emulation of difficult pTAL features. In this case, the integer field "a” overlays the bit field "k”.
- the "_tobitfield” macro takes the name of the surrounding class type as a parameter. That name is different for the two uses of the macro: « f_" versus "g_”.
- the next example depicts a macro whose two uses result in macro body text that does not match; mismatching tokens are in bold.
- Blurred Fragment Boundaries If a construct translation blurs fragment boundaries , the translated fragment tree looks as if two instances of the fragment were created, and the contents of those fragments are not textually identical . Fragment boundary violations are detected by the same fragment consistency check that detects puns that do not work. The following example illustrates a blurred fragment boundary in a use of an ill-formed macro .
- precedence rules differ between the two languages , then introducing parentheses to preserve the original expression ' s semantics can lead to a consistency violation.
- the pTAL language assigns higher precedence to the left shift operator than to the addition operator.
- the C++ language assigns higher precedence to the addition operator than to the left shift operator.
- Parentheses appear in the target language version of the expression to retain the order of evaluation. The parentheses tokens happen to be generated from the higher precedence operator , which determines their fragment assignment.
- pTAL Code Expansion of pTAL Code Generated C++ Code define fred (p) - p ⁇ 2# ; a : - fred (x + 1 ) ; a : - x + 1 ⁇ 2 ; a - x + ( 1 ⁇ ⁇ 2 ) ;
- Suppress simplifying transformations on the generated code when inside of a macro expansion is not sensitive to whether or not the generated code is inside of a macro body expansion or macro formal parameter expansion.
- Some routines that perform construct translations are sensitive to fragment boundaries, though they do not translate fragments.
- These routines suppress simplifying transformations within a macro expansion or macro formal parameter expansion in order to make translations for different macro invocations textually identical. For example, the transformation simplifying the text "&arrayvar[0]" to "arrayvar” is suppressed within a macro when the index is in a macro parameter. Likewise, the transformation simplifying the text " (*ptr) .field” to "p->field” is suppressed when "*p" is a macro actual parameter.
- Absorb tokens that differ between invocations of a macro into an actual parameter when possible.
- Source language tokens might generate not only the logical translation of themselves, but also some attendant baggage. If that baggage can differ in two different invocations of the same macro, there is no problem if the baggage is mapped to the actual parameter rather than the macro body. For example, C++ parentheses generated to force the appropriate operator precedence should be absorbed into the translated actual parameter if they surround C++ tokens generated only from pTAL actual parameter tokens.
- Tandem Computers , Inc . Transaction Application Language (TAL) Reference Manual , Version D10.
- FIG. 1 A prior art tree data structure is outlined in FIG. 1.
- the purpose of this data structure is to relate a set of "things," or objects in a hierarchy.
- One object in this set called a root node, is at the vertex.
- links, called branches connect to other objects, called nodes.
- the nodes may branch to other nodes ultimately terminating in a set of objects called leaves.
- nodes Viewing the tree from the root to the leaves, tracing a single path of branches, nodes are ancestors of each other.
- nodes are descendants of each other. Choosing an arbitrary node, it is considered the child of the node to which it branches toward the root and the parent of the node branching toward the leaves.
- FIG. 2 illustrates a contribution of the present invention to the prior art. It is termed a doubly-rooted tree data structure. This doubly-rooted tree has two roots 511 and 517, but only a single set of leaves 515. From each root emanates a tree, as in the prior art, but the nodes 513 and 519, branches 521 and 523, and hierarchical arrangement of the two trees may be different as long as the two trees co-terminate at a single set of leaves 515.
- the leaves of a doubly-rooted tree are considered tokens and are collectively referred to as the "virtual source.” Fig.
- FIG. 2A is a simplified block diagram of a computer system, designated generally with the reference numeral 10A, incorporating the data structure of- Fig. 2.
- the computing system 10A includes a central processing unit (CPU) 11A that is coupled to a memory 14A and an input/output channel (IOC) 16A by a bus structure 18A.
- the IOC 16A connects the CPU 11A to a data storage area 22A by an input/output (I/O) 20A.
- the data storage area 22A may take the form of a magnetic disk media storage device, an electronic memory, or a communications link to other storage areas.
- While a doubly-rooted tree is two dimensional, the concept can be expanded to three, four, or more dimensions (not illustrated) . Multiple trees may co-terminate at a single set of leaves to form an N-rooted tree.
- Prior art trees are useful in computer language compilers such as the simple one depicted in the data flow chart, FIG. 3.
- source code 51 flows first through a scanner 53, where a stream of characters is divided into recognizable "words" or tokens and then to a parser 55, which determines a hierarchical relationship among the tokens and builds a syntax tree 57.
- An additional step performed by a semantic analyzer 59, further refines the syntax tree 57.
- a syntax translator 61 converts the syntax tree 57 into an intermediate code tree 63.
- a code generator 65 converts the intermediate code tree 63 into object code 67.
- object code 67 is an instruction sequence which a computer can directly execute and is usually stored on magnetic media or in electronic memory. In the normal course of usage, machine code is not stored in a manner which humans can read and interpret.
- the source code to source code translator of the present invention in simplified form, generally follows the flow of the prior art compiler of FIG 3. However, instead of employing simple tree data structures, the translator uses two doubly-rooted trees to preserve contextual information such as macros, conditionally compiled regions of code, source inclusion, comments, and other preprocesso characteristics.
- FIG. 5 is a flowchart that describes a method for building of the first tree in doubly rooted tree, joined at the leaves.
- This method is applicable to building the source fragment tree
- Source is a set of ordered set of objects employed in step 603, one of which is identified as primary.
- Object is a leaf or an ordered set
- FIG. 6 is a flowchart that describes a method for buildin a second tree in the doubly rooted tree, joined at the leaves. This method is applicable to building the source syntax tree 7 of FIG. 4.
- the ordered set of leaves in step 621 that is inpu to the parser 623 is yielded by an inorder traversal of th first tree. The method builds the tree from the bottom up.
- FIG. 7 is a flowchart that describes the translation of th second tree in the doubly rooted tree, joined at the leaves.
- FIG. 8 is a flowchart that describes the translation of th first tree in the doubly rooted tree, joined at the leaves. Th flowchart uses the following data and operations:
- the "open" nodes in the tree include the ancestors of the last leaf that was added to the tree. Adding a child to a node "closes" nodes that are no longer ancestors of the latest leaf added.
- FIG. 8 shows a method of translating a fragment tree from the source doubly-rooted tree to the target doubly-rooted tree. This is a critical stage in the translation process; it is the point at which preprocessor characteristics are transferred from the source code to the target code.
- the translator traverses the target language virtual source token stream, and builds the target language fragment tree, based on the position in the source language fragment tree of the source language token associated with each target language token encountered in the virtual source stream.
- Translate( ⁇ ) Translate ⁇ (token or fragment) to the target language version of the object, and return the translation.
- Translation(n) Return the latest translation of the fragment n ; nil if it has not been translated.
- Parent(n) If n is a token, return the fragment in which n resides. If ⁇ is a fragment, return the invocation syntax of the fragment (macro name token, for example) .
- Is ⁇ pen(n) Return true if the fragment n is open in the target fragment tree.
- the "open" nodes in the target language fragment tree include the ancestors of the last token that was added to the fragment tree. Adding a child to a fragment "closes" nodes that are no longer ancestors of the latest token added.
- SourceToken the source token associated with the current TargetToken
- SourceFrag Parent (SourceToken) IF (IsOpen (Translation (SourceFrag) ) ) THEN BEGIN
- TargetFrag Translation (SourceFrag) Attach (TargetToken, TargetFrag) END ELSE BEGIN
- TargetlnvSyntax Translate (SourcelnvSyntax) Attach (TargetFrag, TargetlnvSyntax)
- SourceFrag Parent (SourcelnvSyntax)
- END WHILE TargetFrag Translation (SourceFrag) Attach (TargetlnvSyntax, TargetFrag) ;
- FIGS. 9, 10, and 11 show an example of how the method of FIGS. 5, 6, 7, and 8 operates on a specific two line macro:
- the macro was written for a compiler of a Tandem proprietary high level language, pTAL.
- the target source code is a well known standardized language, C++. Correctly translated to C++, the macro reads:
- FIG. 9 depicts an example fragment tree and syntax tree, using the pTAL language as the source language.
- This diagram represents an explosion of the pTAL syntax tree, pTAL fragment tree, and the pTAL tokens that connect them depicted in a more general way in FIG. : the source fragment tree 19, the source syntax tree 7, and leaves 9 that join them.
- the pTAL fragment tree and syntax tree is a doubly rooted tree jointed at the tokens.
- the tokens making up the body of the define "less" are represented in their context of use.
- Fragment 121 represents the primary input file.
- Fragment 127 represents the invocation of the macro "less”. Tokens 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 129, 131, 135, and 177 are in fragment 127.
- the macro's invocation syntax 129, 131, 135 is associated with the fragment 127.
- the tokens 171, 173, and 141, which compose the macro body, are in fragment 127.
- Fragment 137 represents the substitution for macro formal parameter "x" of the actual parameter text, which is the token 175.
- the macro formal parameter's invocation syntax 141 is associated with the fragment 137.
- the token 175, which is the macro actual parameter, is in fragment 137.
- Node 179 represents a pTAL procedure. That procedure is composed of a macro declaration represented by node 147 and a while statement represented by node 149.
- the macro declaration 147 contains the tokens 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, and 167.
- the body of the macro is expanded in its context of use.
- the while statement 149 is composed of the token 169, an expression represented by node 151, and the token 177.
- the expression 151 is composed of the tokens 171, 173, and 175.
- FIG. 10 depicts a pTAL fragment subtree and syntax subtree, including the tokens that link them. It also depicts the C++ syntax tree that represents the translation of the pTAL syntax tree.
- the syntax translator has translated each pTAL syntactic construct to a semantically equivalent C++ syntactic construct. In addition, it maps pTAL tokens to - C++ tokens.
- the pTAL fragment tree has not yet been translated to its C++ counterpart.
- the source language while statement 149 has been translated to the target language while statement 239.
- the source language expression 151 has been translated to the target language expression 241.
- Each C++ token in the C++ syntax tree 243, 245, 247, 249, 251, 253 was "generated" by exactly one pTAL token.
- C++ token 243 was generated by pTAL token 169
- C++ token 245 was generated by pTAL token 171, and so on as depicted by dashed arrows.
- FIG. 11 depicts a pTAL fragment tree and syntax tree, including the tokens that link them. It also depicts a semantically equivalent C++ fragment tree and syntax tree, including the tokens that link them. It depicts FIG. 11 after the translation of the fragment tree. In order to perform the translation, traverse the leaves of the C++ syntax tree; these leaves will become the leaves of the C++ fragment tree.
- a fragment in the C++ fragment tree is "open" if it is an ancestor of the leaf that was most recently added to the C++ fragment tree.
- This token is associated with the pTAL token 169.
- the pTAL token 169 is contained in pTAL fragment 121, which translated to C++ fragment 273.
- This token is associated with the pTAL token 169.
- the pTAL token 169 is contained in pTAL fragment 121.
- pTAL fragment 121 translated to C++ fragment 273.
- C++ fragment 273 is "open". Add C++ token 245 to C++ fragment 273. Consider the C++ token 247.
- This token is associated with the pTAL token 171.
- the pTAL token 171 is contained in pTAL fragment 127.
- the pTAL fragment 127 has not been translated, so does not appear in the C++ fragment tree.
- the parent of the pTAL fragment 127 is the pTAL fragment 121.
- pTAL fragment 121 translated to the C++ fragment 273.
- C++ fragment 273 is "open" in the C++ fragment tree.
- This token is associated with the pTAL token 173.
- the pTAL token 173 is contained in the pTAL fragment 127.
- the pTAL fragment 127 translated to the C++ fragment 265.
- the C++ fragment 265 is "open" in the C++ fragment tree.
- the pTAL token 175 is contained in the pTAL fragment 137.
- the pTAL fragment 137 has not been translated, so does not appear in the C++ fragment tree.
- the parent of the pTAL fragment 137 is the pTAL fragment 127.
- the pTAL fragment 127 was translated to the C++ fragment 265.
- the C++ fragment 265 is "open" in the C++ fragment tree.
- This token is associated with the pTAL token 169.
- the pTAL token 169 is contained in pTAL fragment 121, which translated to C++ fragment 273.
- C++ fragment 273 is "open". Add C++ token 253 to C++ fragment 273.
Abstract
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
EP95938757A EP0789875B1 (en) | 1994-10-07 | 1995-10-06 | Method of translating source code from one high-level computer language to another |
DE69516891T DE69516891T2 (en) | 1994-10-07 | 1995-10-06 | METHOD FOR TRANSLATING SOURCE CODE FROM ONE COMPUTER HIGH LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER |
JP8512724A JPH10508398A (en) | 1994-10-07 | 1995-10-06 | Method and apparatus for converting source code from one high-level computer language to another high-level computer language |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US08/319,682 US5768564A (en) | 1994-10-07 | 1994-10-07 | Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another |
US08/319,682 | 1994-10-07 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO1996011437A1 true WO1996011437A1 (en) | 1996-04-18 |
Family
ID=23243255
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US1995/013260 WO1996011437A1 (en) | 1994-10-07 | 1995-10-06 | Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another |
Country Status (6)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US5768564A (en) |
EP (1) | EP0789875B1 (en) |
JP (1) | JPH10508398A (en) |
CA (1) | CA2201882A1 (en) |
DE (1) | DE69516891T2 (en) |
WO (1) | WO1996011437A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11915308B2 (en) | 2018-05-10 | 2024-02-27 | Miovision Technologies Incorporated | Blockchain data exchange network and methods and systems for submitting data to and transacting data on such a network |
Families Citing this family (192)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP3505266B2 (en) * | 1995-06-15 | 2004-03-08 | 三洋電機株式会社 | Program execution device |
US6173327B1 (en) * | 1996-07-11 | 2001-01-09 | Jeroen De Borst | Object-oriented method and apparatus for information delivery |
US6263485B1 (en) | 1996-07-11 | 2001-07-17 | Andrew Schofield | Method and apparatus for describing an interface definition language-defined interface, operation, and data type |
US5943674A (en) * | 1996-07-11 | 1999-08-24 | Tandem Computers Incorporated | Data structure representing an interface definition language source file |
US5884083A (en) * | 1996-09-20 | 1999-03-16 | Royce; Robert | Computer system to compile non-incremental computer source code to execute within an incremental type computer system |
US6658624B1 (en) * | 1996-09-24 | 2003-12-02 | Ricoh Company, Ltd. | Method and system for processing documents controlled by active documents with embedded instructions |
JPH10177495A (en) * | 1996-12-18 | 1998-06-30 | Toshiba Corp | Distributed control network system |
JP3130828B2 (en) * | 1997-04-28 | 2001-01-31 | 日本電気アイシーマイコンシステム株式会社 | Assembly processing method |
GB2324890B (en) * | 1997-05-03 | 2002-05-08 | Ibm | Data processing method and apparatus |
US6960133B1 (en) * | 2000-08-28 | 2005-11-01 | Igt | Slot machine game having a plurality of ways for a user to obtain payouts based on selection of one or more symbols (power pays) |
US6425118B1 (en) | 1997-07-18 | 2002-07-23 | Compaq Computer Corporation | System for automatically generating tests to ensure binary compatibility between software components produced by a source-to-source computer language translator |
US6317871B1 (en) * | 1997-07-18 | 2001-11-13 | Compaq Computer Corporation | System for ensuring the accuracy of file structures in a source-to-source computer program translator |
WO1999012094A1 (en) * | 1997-09-01 | 1999-03-11 | Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme Ag | Method for converting an object code into a programme code |
US5953526A (en) * | 1997-11-10 | 1999-09-14 | Internatinal Business Machines Corp. | Object oriented programming system with displayable natural language documentation through dual translation of program source code |
US6631514B1 (en) * | 1998-01-06 | 2003-10-07 | Hewlett-Packard Development, L.P. | Emulation system that uses dynamic binary translation and permits the safe speculation of trapping operations |
US6487566B1 (en) * | 1998-10-05 | 2002-11-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Transforming documents using pattern matching and a replacement language |
US6317873B1 (en) * | 1998-10-14 | 2001-11-13 | Alcatel Usa Sourcing, L.P. | Assembly language translator |
KR20010089309A (en) * | 1998-10-16 | 2001-09-29 | 엘그레시 도론 | Method for determining differences between two or more models |
US6357003B1 (en) * | 1998-10-21 | 2002-03-12 | Silicon Graphics, Inc. | Advanced firmware boot sequence x86 computer system that maintains legacy hardware and software compatibility |
US6346945B1 (en) * | 1998-12-28 | 2002-02-12 | Klocwork Solutions | Method and apparatus for pattern-based flowcharting of source code |
US7047232B1 (en) * | 1999-01-13 | 2006-05-16 | Ab Initio Software Corporation | Parallelizing applications of script-driven tools |
US6374239B1 (en) | 1999-02-09 | 2002-04-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and computer program product for implementing translatable text in user modifiable SQL scripts |
CA2267482C (en) * | 1999-03-30 | 2004-08-10 | Ibm Canada Limited-Ibm Canada Limitee | Report program language source code translation to object-oriented language source code which emulates report program language behaviour |
US6889260B1 (en) * | 1999-06-10 | 2005-05-03 | Ec Enabler, Ltd | Method and system for transferring information |
US7054015B1 (en) * | 1999-07-02 | 2006-05-30 | Electronics For Imaging, Inc. | Printer description file format generator |
FR2798483B1 (en) * | 1999-08-16 | 2001-12-14 | Cit Alcatel | PROCESS FOR THE AUTOMATIC PRODUCTION OF SPECIFICATIONS |
US6654950B1 (en) | 1999-08-24 | 2003-11-25 | Bae Systems Mission Solutions Inc. | Software rehosting system and method |
US6353925B1 (en) * | 1999-09-22 | 2002-03-05 | Compaq Computer Corporation | System and method for lexing and parsing program annotations |
US7734457B2 (en) * | 1999-10-16 | 2010-06-08 | Computer Associates Think, Inc. | Method and system for generating dynamic comparison models |
JP3430252B2 (en) * | 2000-01-24 | 2003-07-28 | 独立行政法人産業技術総合研究所 | Source code conversion method, recording medium recording source code conversion program, and source code conversion device |
US6675370B1 (en) | 2000-02-02 | 2004-01-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for imbedding hyperlinked language grammar notation in a “literate” programming environment |
US6769985B1 (en) | 2000-05-31 | 2004-08-03 | Igt | Gaming device and method for enhancing the issuance or transfer of an award |
US20030200535A1 (en) * | 2000-06-09 | 2003-10-23 | Mcnamara Benedict Bede | System for program source code conversion |
US6915508B2 (en) * | 2000-06-12 | 2005-07-05 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for eliminating C recursion from a Java™ bytecode interpreter |
US7695363B2 (en) * | 2000-06-23 | 2010-04-13 | Igt | Gaming device having multiple display interfaces |
US7699699B2 (en) | 2000-06-23 | 2010-04-20 | Igt | Gaming device having multiple selectable display interfaces based on player's wagers |
US6874141B1 (en) * | 2000-06-29 | 2005-03-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Method of compiling schema mapping |
US6935955B1 (en) | 2000-09-07 | 2005-08-30 | Igt | Gaming device with award and deduction proximity-based sound effect feature |
US6739973B1 (en) * | 2000-10-11 | 2004-05-25 | Igt | Gaming device having changed or generated player stimuli |
US20020112201A1 (en) * | 2000-12-04 | 2002-08-15 | Flanagan Cormac Andrias | Method and apparatus for automatically inferring annotations for an extended static checker |
US7174536B1 (en) * | 2001-02-12 | 2007-02-06 | Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. | Integrated interactive software visualization environment |
US20020111963A1 (en) * | 2001-02-14 | 2002-08-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system, and program for preprocessing a document to render on an output device |
US6749502B2 (en) * | 2001-03-21 | 2004-06-15 | Igt | Gaming device having a multi-characteristic matching game |
US6934709B2 (en) | 2001-03-26 | 2005-08-23 | Matrixone, Inc. | Interface definition language compiler |
BR0209497A (en) * | 2001-05-11 | 2005-08-30 | Computer Ass Think Inc | Method and system for transforming legacy software applications into modern object-oriented systems |
US6993751B2 (en) * | 2001-05-14 | 2006-01-31 | Microsoft Corporation | Placing exception throwing instructions in compiled code |
US7043716B2 (en) * | 2001-06-13 | 2006-05-09 | Arius Software Corporation | System and method for multiple level architecture by use of abstract application notation |
GB0120611D0 (en) * | 2001-08-24 | 2001-10-17 | Igt Uk Ltd | Video display systems |
US7901291B2 (en) | 2001-09-28 | 2011-03-08 | Igt | Gaming device operable with platform independent code and method |
US7708642B2 (en) * | 2001-10-15 | 2010-05-04 | Igt | Gaming device having pitch-shifted sound and music |
US6848996B2 (en) * | 2001-10-15 | 2005-02-01 | Igt | Gaming device with sound recording changes associated with player inputs |
US7666098B2 (en) | 2001-10-15 | 2010-02-23 | Igt | Gaming device having modified reel spin sounds to highlight and enhance positive player outcomes |
US6694497B2 (en) * | 2001-10-26 | 2004-02-17 | Stmicroelectronics Limited | Method of testing integrated circuitry at system and module level |
US6925635B2 (en) * | 2001-12-13 | 2005-08-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Embedded pre-processor with dynamic macro forms |
US7065549B2 (en) * | 2002-03-29 | 2006-06-20 | Illinois Institute Of Technology | Communication and process migration protocols for distributed heterogeneous computing |
US7359904B2 (en) * | 2002-06-14 | 2008-04-15 | Integrated Knowledge Solutions, Inc. | Method to efficiently process and present possible arrangements of a set of contiguous peer-to-peer links |
US8332828B2 (en) * | 2002-11-20 | 2012-12-11 | Purenative Software Corporation | System for translating diverse programming languages |
US9965259B2 (en) | 2002-11-20 | 2018-05-08 | Purenative Software Corporation | System for translating diverse programming languages |
US7346897B2 (en) * | 2002-11-20 | 2008-03-18 | Purenative Software Corporation | System for translating programming languages |
US9086931B2 (en) | 2002-11-20 | 2015-07-21 | Purenative Software Corporation | System for translating diverse programming languages |
US8656372B2 (en) * | 2002-11-20 | 2014-02-18 | Purenative Software Corporation | System for translating diverse programming languages |
US7120905B2 (en) * | 2003-01-29 | 2006-10-10 | Wind River Systems, Inc. | System and method for transformation of assembly code for conditional execution |
US6961733B2 (en) * | 2003-03-10 | 2005-11-01 | Unisys Corporation | System and method for storing and accessing data in an interlocking trees datastore |
US7337438B1 (en) | 2003-03-31 | 2008-02-26 | Applied Micro Circuits Corporation | Macros to support structures for an assembler that does not support structures |
US20080320054A1 (en) * | 2003-04-09 | 2008-12-25 | Cindy Howard | Database and Software Conversion System and Method |
US7240338B1 (en) | 2003-05-29 | 2007-07-03 | Itt Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. | Computer language translation system and method of converting procedural computer language software to object-oriented computer language software |
US7165238B2 (en) * | 2003-06-06 | 2007-01-16 | Intentional Software Corporation | Method and system for organizing and manipulating nodes by category in a program tree |
US7383542B2 (en) * | 2003-06-20 | 2008-06-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Adaptive machine translation service |
US7051279B2 (en) * | 2003-07-08 | 2006-05-23 | Intentional Software Corporation | Method and system for providing multiple levels of help information for a computer program |
CN1567223A (en) * | 2003-07-09 | 2005-01-19 | 松下电器产业株式会社 | Programe generating device, method and procedure |
EP1652074A4 (en) * | 2003-07-11 | 2008-08-13 | Computer Ass Think Inc | Adding user-defined objects to a modeling tool |
US7272821B2 (en) | 2003-08-25 | 2007-09-18 | Tech Mahindra Limited | System and method of universal programming language conversion |
US7789748B2 (en) * | 2003-09-04 | 2010-09-07 | Igt | Gaming device having player-selectable music |
US7105736B2 (en) * | 2003-09-09 | 2006-09-12 | Igt | Gaming device having a system for dynamically aligning background music with play session events |
US20060101018A1 (en) | 2004-11-08 | 2006-05-11 | Mazzagatti Jane C | Method for processing new sequences being recorded into an interlocking trees datastore |
US8516004B2 (en) * | 2003-09-19 | 2013-08-20 | Unisys Corporation | Method for processing K node count fields using an intensity variable |
US7356804B2 (en) * | 2003-11-26 | 2008-04-08 | Sap Aktiengesellschaft | Language integrated unit testing |
US7340471B2 (en) * | 2004-01-16 | 2008-03-04 | Unisys Corporation | Saving and restoring an interlocking trees datastore |
JP4724387B2 (en) * | 2004-06-24 | 2011-07-13 | 富士通株式会社 | Program conversion program, program conversion apparatus, and program conversion method |
US7593923B1 (en) | 2004-06-29 | 2009-09-22 | Unisys Corporation | Functional operations for accessing and/or building interlocking trees datastores to enable their use with applications software |
FR2872600B1 (en) * | 2004-07-02 | 2008-04-18 | Thales Sa | COMPUTER CODE TRANSFORMATION METHOD AND COMPUTER PRODUCT / PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTING SUCH A METHOD |
US20060041940A1 (en) * | 2004-08-21 | 2006-02-23 | Ko-Cheng Fang | Computer data protecting method |
US7213041B2 (en) * | 2004-10-05 | 2007-05-01 | Unisys Corporation | Saving and restoring an interlocking trees datastore |
US8043155B2 (en) * | 2004-10-18 | 2011-10-25 | Igt | Gaming device having a plurality of wildcard symbol patterns |
US7716241B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2010-05-11 | Unisys Corporation | Storing the repository origin of data inputs within a knowledge store |
US7908240B1 (en) | 2004-10-28 | 2011-03-15 | Unisys Corporation | Facilitated use of column and field data for field record universe in a knowledge store |
US7676477B1 (en) | 2005-10-24 | 2010-03-09 | Unisys Corporation | Utilities for deriving values and information from within an interlocking trees data store |
US7348980B2 (en) | 2004-11-08 | 2008-03-25 | Unisys Corporation | Method and apparatus for interface for graphic display of data from a Kstore |
US7499932B2 (en) * | 2004-11-08 | 2009-03-03 | Unisys Corporation | Accessing data in an interlocking trees data structure using an application programming interface |
US20070162508A1 (en) * | 2004-11-08 | 2007-07-12 | Mazzagatti Jane C | Updating information in an interlocking trees datastore |
US8738891B1 (en) * | 2004-11-15 | 2014-05-27 | Nvidia Corporation | Methods and systems for command acceleration in a video processor via translation of scalar instructions into vector instructions |
US20060143598A1 (en) * | 2004-12-29 | 2006-06-29 | Zimmer Vincent J | Method and apparatus for transforming program representations |
US7774787B2 (en) * | 2005-01-11 | 2010-08-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Method for specifying and verifying multi-threaded object-oriented programs with invariants |
US7409380B1 (en) | 2005-04-07 | 2008-08-05 | Unisys Corporation | Facilitated reuse of K locations in a knowledge store |
US7590978B2 (en) * | 2005-04-15 | 2009-09-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Inferring object invariant method and system |
US7559054B2 (en) * | 2005-04-19 | 2009-07-07 | Microsoft Corporation | Abstract interpretation with a congruence abstract domain and/or a heap succession abstract domain |
US20060242174A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Systems and methods for using object-oriented tools to debug business applications |
US20060241999A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of exposing a sequence of instructions into an object-oriented programming language |
US7542980B2 (en) | 2005-04-22 | 2009-06-02 | Sap Ag | Methods of comparing and merging business process configurations |
US7720879B2 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2010-05-18 | Sap Ag | Methods of using an integrated development environment to configure business applications |
US8539003B2 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2013-09-17 | Sap Ag | Systems and methods for identifying problems of a business application in a customer support system |
US20060241961A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of optimizing legacy application layer control structure using refactoring |
US20060293935A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-12-28 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods and systems for incrementally exposing business application errors using an integrated display |
US20060242172A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Systems and methods for transforming logic entities of a business application into an object-oriented model |
US20060242171A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of using code-based case tools to verify application layer configurations |
US7702638B2 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2010-04-20 | Sap Ag | Systems and methods for off-line modeling a business application |
US20060242196A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of exposing application layer integrity as object oriented programming language elements |
US20060293940A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-12-28 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods and systems for applying intelligent filters and identifying life cycle events for data elements during business application debugging |
US20060242177A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of exposing business application runtime exceptions at design time |
US20060242197A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of transforming application layer structure as objects |
US20060242176A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of exposing business configuration dependencies |
US20060242188A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods of exposing a missing collection of application elements as deprecated |
US20060282458A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-12-14 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Methods and systems for merging business process configurations |
US7958486B2 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2011-06-07 | Sap Ag | Methods and systems for data-focused debugging and tracing capabilities |
US20060242194A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Igor Tsyganskiy | Systems and methods for modeling and manipulating a table-driven business application in an object-oriented environment |
US20060271920A1 (en) * | 2005-05-24 | 2006-11-30 | Wael Abouelsaadat | Multilingual compiler system and method |
US7389301B1 (en) | 2005-06-10 | 2008-06-17 | Unisys Corporation | Data aggregation user interface and analytic adapted for a KStore |
JP4670496B2 (en) * | 2005-06-14 | 2011-04-13 | 住友電気工業株式会社 | Optical receiver |
US20070011669A1 (en) * | 2005-07-06 | 2007-01-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Software migration |
US7730477B2 (en) * | 2005-09-26 | 2010-06-01 | Bea Systems Inc. | System and method for propagation in a web portal system |
US7752651B2 (en) * | 2005-09-26 | 2010-07-06 | Bea Systems Inc. | System and method for propagating security information in a web portal system |
EP1966691A2 (en) * | 2005-12-27 | 2008-09-10 | Vaakya Technologies Private Limited | Method and system for compiling a source code |
US20070214153A1 (en) * | 2006-03-10 | 2007-09-13 | Mazzagatti Jane C | Method for processing an input particle stream for creating upper levels of KStore |
US7734571B2 (en) * | 2006-03-20 | 2010-06-08 | Unisys Corporation | Method for processing sensor data within a particle stream by a KStore |
US20080275842A1 (en) * | 2006-03-20 | 2008-11-06 | Jane Campbell Mazzagatti | Method for processing counts when an end node is encountered |
US20070220069A1 (en) * | 2006-03-20 | 2007-09-20 | Mazzagatti Jane C | Method for processing an input particle stream for creating lower levels of a KStore |
US7689571B1 (en) | 2006-03-24 | 2010-03-30 | Unisys Corporation | Optimizing the size of an interlocking tree datastore structure for KStore |
US8015554B2 (en) * | 2006-03-24 | 2011-09-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Source-to-source transformation for language dialects |
US8238351B2 (en) * | 2006-04-04 | 2012-08-07 | Unisys Corporation | Method for determining a most probable K location |
US7774746B2 (en) * | 2006-04-19 | 2010-08-10 | Apple, Inc. | Generating a format translator |
JP2007304840A (en) * | 2006-05-11 | 2007-11-22 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Compilation method, debugging method, compilation program, and debugging program |
US7676330B1 (en) | 2006-05-16 | 2010-03-09 | Unisys Corporation | Method for processing a particle using a sensor structure |
US7788658B2 (en) * | 2006-05-31 | 2010-08-31 | International Business Machines Corporation | Computer code partitioning for enhanced performance |
US8079027B2 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2011-12-13 | Via Technologies, Inc. | Programming language translation systems and methods |
WO2008108665A1 (en) * | 2007-03-05 | 2008-09-12 | Innaworks Development Limited | A computer implemented translation method |
US20080250231A1 (en) * | 2007-04-03 | 2008-10-09 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Program code conversion apparatus, program code conversion method and recording medium |
EP2037374A1 (en) * | 2007-09-11 | 2009-03-18 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | Method for translating a graphical workflow in a textual description |
US8181167B2 (en) * | 2008-01-09 | 2012-05-15 | Kan Zhao | Method and system for presenting and analyzing software source code through intermediate representation |
US8249856B2 (en) * | 2008-03-20 | 2012-08-21 | Raytheon Bbn Technologies Corp. | Machine translation |
US8762962B2 (en) * | 2008-06-16 | 2014-06-24 | Beek Fund B.V. L.L.C. | Methods and apparatus for automatic translation of a computer program language code |
US8099721B2 (en) | 2008-06-17 | 2012-01-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Parsing of declarations in all branches of preprocessor conditionals |
US20090328016A1 (en) * | 2008-06-27 | 2009-12-31 | Microsoft Corporation | Generalized expression trees |
US8591308B2 (en) * | 2008-09-10 | 2013-11-26 | Igt | Gaming system and method providing indication of notable symbols including audible indication |
US20100088686A1 (en) * | 2008-10-06 | 2010-04-08 | Microsoft Corporation | Programming language with extensible syntax |
US8762963B2 (en) * | 2008-12-04 | 2014-06-24 | Beck Fund B.V. L.L.C. | Translation of programming code |
US20100153912A1 (en) * | 2008-12-15 | 2010-06-17 | Apple Inc. | Variable type knowledge based call specialization |
JP2010287213A (en) * | 2009-05-11 | 2010-12-24 | Nec Corp | File conversion device, file conversion method, and file conversion program |
US9665620B2 (en) | 2010-01-15 | 2017-05-30 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Managing data queries |
US20110307904A1 (en) * | 2010-06-14 | 2011-12-15 | James Malnati | Method and apparatus for automation language extension |
US20110313995A1 (en) * | 2010-06-18 | 2011-12-22 | Abraham Lederman | Browser based multilingual federated search |
DE102010032136A1 (en) * | 2010-07-24 | 2012-01-26 | Man Truck & Bus Ag | Replacement method for a control unit in a vehicle electrical system of a vehicle |
US9053099B2 (en) | 2010-08-10 | 2015-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for validating equivalent data structures |
US9116955B2 (en) | 2011-05-02 | 2015-08-25 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Managing data queries |
CN102937910B (en) * | 2011-08-16 | 2015-06-10 | 中广核(北京)仿真技术有限公司 | System and method for cross-platform conversion of control algorithms |
US8799864B2 (en) * | 2011-09-13 | 2014-08-05 | Synopsys, Inc. | Providing SystemVerilog testing harness for a standardized testing language |
US8806452B2 (en) | 2011-11-10 | 2014-08-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Transformation of computer programs and eliminating errors |
US9043766B2 (en) * | 2011-12-16 | 2015-05-26 | Facebook, Inc. | Language translation using preprocessor macros |
US8460090B1 (en) | 2012-01-20 | 2013-06-11 | Igt | Gaming system, gaming device, and method providing an estimated emotional state of a player based on the occurrence of one or more designated events |
US8740689B2 (en) | 2012-07-06 | 2014-06-03 | Igt | Gaming system and method configured to operate a game associated with a reflector symbol |
US9245407B2 (en) | 2012-07-06 | 2016-01-26 | Igt | Gaming system and method that determines awards based on quantities of symbols included in one or more strings of related symbols displayed along one or more paylines |
US9280322B2 (en) * | 2012-09-27 | 2016-03-08 | Intel Corporation | Generating source code |
US9192857B2 (en) | 2013-07-23 | 2015-11-24 | Igt | Beat synchronization in a game |
US9405652B2 (en) * | 2013-10-31 | 2016-08-02 | Red Hat, Inc. | Regular expression support in instrumentation languages using kernel-mode executable code |
CN103631632B (en) * | 2013-11-29 | 2017-08-04 | 华为技术有限公司 | Implantation method and source-to-source compiler |
AU2014360106B2 (en) | 2013-12-06 | 2019-05-23 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Source code translation |
US10437819B2 (en) | 2014-11-14 | 2019-10-08 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Processing queries containing a union-type operation |
US10324712B1 (en) * | 2014-12-24 | 2019-06-18 | Thomas A. Nolan | Method and system of migrating legacy code for upgraded systems |
US10417281B2 (en) | 2015-02-18 | 2019-09-17 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Querying a data source on a network |
US9575731B1 (en) | 2015-06-22 | 2017-02-21 | Chaorong Peng | Diagram language for computer programming |
US10360236B2 (en) * | 2015-09-25 | 2019-07-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Replicating structured query language (SQL) in a heterogeneous replication environment |
US9947170B2 (en) | 2015-09-28 | 2018-04-17 | Igt | Time synchronization of gaming machines |
US9658837B1 (en) | 2015-11-06 | 2017-05-23 | Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company | Integration of independent platforms |
US9715375B1 (en) * | 2016-01-27 | 2017-07-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Parallel compilation of software application |
US10650046B2 (en) | 2016-02-05 | 2020-05-12 | Sas Institute Inc. | Many task computing with distributed file system |
US10642896B2 (en) | 2016-02-05 | 2020-05-05 | Sas Institute Inc. | Handling of data sets during execution of task routines of multiple languages |
US10795935B2 (en) | 2016-02-05 | 2020-10-06 | Sas Institute Inc. | Automated generation of job flow definitions |
KR101906823B1 (en) | 2016-03-07 | 2018-12-05 | 주식회사 럭스로보 | Multi-module compilation system, multi-module compilation method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium |
RU2016137177A (en) * | 2016-09-16 | 2018-03-19 | Оракл Интернэйшнл Корпорейшн | IMPROVED TRANSFORMATION OF SOURCE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE CODE |
RU2016137176A (en) * | 2016-09-16 | 2018-03-19 | Оракл Интернэйшнл Корпорейшн | LINKING THE TRANSFORMED SOURCE CODE TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE CODE BY METADATA |
USD898059S1 (en) | 2017-02-06 | 2020-10-06 | Sas Institute Inc. | Display screen or portion thereof with graphical user interface |
USD898060S1 (en) | 2017-06-05 | 2020-10-06 | Sas Institute Inc. | Display screen or portion thereof with graphical user interface |
US10606573B2 (en) * | 2017-06-07 | 2020-03-31 | Syntel, Inc. | System and method for computer language migration using a re-architecture tool for decomposing a legacy system and recomposing a modernized system |
US10503498B2 (en) | 2017-11-16 | 2019-12-10 | Sas Institute Inc. | Scalable cloud-based time series analysis |
US10423396B1 (en) | 2018-05-04 | 2019-09-24 | Salesforce.Com, Inc. | Transforming non-apex code to apex code |
US10846059B2 (en) | 2019-02-05 | 2020-11-24 | Simply Inspired Software, Inc. | Automated generation of software bindings |
US11449336B2 (en) * | 2019-05-24 | 2022-09-20 | Texas Instmments Incorporated | Method of storing register data elements to interleave with data elements of a different register, a processor thereof, and a system thereof |
US11093223B2 (en) | 2019-07-18 | 2021-08-17 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Automatically converting a program written in a procedural programming language into a dataflow graph and related systems and methods |
US10733303B1 (en) * | 2020-04-23 | 2020-08-04 | Polyverse Corporation | Polymorphic code translation systems and methods |
US11669613B2 (en) | 2020-05-29 | 2023-06-06 | EnSoft Corp. | Method for analyzing and verifying software for safety and security |
US11875141B2 (en) * | 2020-11-20 | 2024-01-16 | Infosys Limited | System and method for training a neural machine translation model |
US11809839B2 (en) | 2022-01-18 | 2023-11-07 | Robert Lyden | Computer language and code for application development and electronic and optical communication |
CN115454414B (en) * | 2022-11-10 | 2023-03-24 | 凯云联创(北京)科技有限公司 | Code processing method and device and computer readable storage medium |
Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4667290A (en) * | 1984-09-10 | 1987-05-19 | 501 Philon, Inc. | Compilers using a universal intermediate language |
US4956809A (en) * | 1986-11-24 | 1990-09-11 | Mark Williams Company | Method for canonical ordering of binary data for portable operating systems |
US4989132A (en) * | 1988-10-24 | 1991-01-29 | Eastman Kodak Company | Object-oriented, logic, and database programming tool with garbage collection |
Family Cites Families (14)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JPS58201175A (en) * | 1982-05-20 | 1983-11-22 | Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co Ltd <Kdd> | Machine translation system |
JPS62194533A (en) * | 1986-02-21 | 1987-08-27 | Hitachi Ltd | Pattern matching system for tree structure data |
US4868743A (en) * | 1986-11-25 | 1989-09-19 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Traversal method of processing tree structure information and apparatus using the same |
US5239663A (en) * | 1987-06-15 | 1993-08-24 | Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique | Self-adapting and multifunctional process and structure for the automated evaluation of logical or arithmetic expressions, particularly for extended database consultation |
JP2534360B2 (en) * | 1988-09-26 | 1996-09-11 | インターナシヨナル・ビジネス・マシーンズ・コーポレーシヨン | Connection method, node connection method, data processing method, and method of inserting node in tree |
US5276874A (en) * | 1989-08-11 | 1994-01-04 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method for creating a directory tree in main memory using an index file in secondary memory |
GB9005697D0 (en) * | 1990-03-14 | 1990-05-09 | Digital Equipment Int | Data format conversion |
US5151697A (en) * | 1990-10-15 | 1992-09-29 | Board Of Regents Of The University Of Washington | Data structure management tagging system |
US5301284A (en) * | 1991-01-16 | 1994-04-05 | Walker-Estes Corporation | Mixed-resolution, N-dimensional object space method and apparatus |
US5477451A (en) * | 1991-07-25 | 1995-12-19 | International Business Machines Corp. | Method and system for natural language translation |
US5392390A (en) * | 1992-04-10 | 1995-02-21 | Intellilink Corp. | Method for mapping, translating, and dynamically reconciling data between disparate computer platforms |
US5367683A (en) * | 1992-06-26 | 1994-11-22 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Smart recompilation of performing matchup/difference after code generation |
JPH0778742B2 (en) * | 1992-08-12 | 1995-08-23 | インターナショナル・ビジネス・マシーンズ・コーポレイション | Computer program language conversion device and method thereof |
US5384568A (en) * | 1993-12-02 | 1995-01-24 | Bell Communications Research, Inc. | Data compression |
-
1994
- 1994-10-07 US US08/319,682 patent/US5768564A/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
1995
- 1995-10-06 JP JP8512724A patent/JPH10508398A/en not_active Ceased
- 1995-10-06 EP EP95938757A patent/EP0789875B1/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
- 1995-10-06 WO PCT/US1995/013260 patent/WO1996011437A1/en active IP Right Grant
- 1995-10-06 DE DE69516891T patent/DE69516891T2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 1995-10-06 CA CA002201882A patent/CA2201882A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
1998
- 1998-01-13 US US09/006,138 patent/US6031993A/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4667290A (en) * | 1984-09-10 | 1987-05-19 | 501 Philon, Inc. | Compilers using a universal intermediate language |
US4956809A (en) * | 1986-11-24 | 1990-09-11 | Mark Williams Company | Method for canonical ordering of binary data for portable operating systems |
US4989132A (en) * | 1988-10-24 | 1991-01-29 | Eastman Kodak Company | Object-oriented, logic, and database programming tool with garbage collection |
Non-Patent Citations (1)
Title |
---|
See also references of EP0789875A4 * |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11915308B2 (en) | 2018-05-10 | 2024-02-27 | Miovision Technologies Incorporated | Blockchain data exchange network and methods and systems for submitting data to and transacting data on such a network |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
JPH10508398A (en) | 1998-08-18 |
CA2201882A1 (en) | 1996-04-18 |
EP0789875A1 (en) | 1997-08-20 |
US6031993A (en) | 2000-02-29 |
US5768564A (en) | 1998-06-16 |
EP0789875B1 (en) | 2000-05-10 |
DE69516891D1 (en) | 2000-06-15 |
DE69516891T2 (en) | 2000-10-05 |
EP0789875A4 (en) | 1997-09-03 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US6031993A (en) | Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another | |
US5842204A (en) | Method and apparatus for translating source code from one high-level computer language to another | |
Sprinkle | Metamodel driven model migration | |
Simonyi | Intentional programming: Innovation in the legacy age | |
Flatt | Programming languages for reusable software components | |
Casais et al. | OBST—An overview | |
Wirfs-Brock et al. | A overview of modular smalltalk | |
Renggli | Dynamic language embedding with homogeneous tool support | |
Porres | A toolkit for model manipulation | |
Tenma et al. | A system for generating language-oriented editors | |
Banavar | An application framework for compositional modularity | |
Werner | Facilitating schema evolution with automatic program transformations | |
Milne | The formal basis for the RAISE specification language | |
Hanson et al. | A research C# compiler | |
Caplinger | A Single Intermediate Language for Programming Environments | |
Bach et al. | Tom manual | |
van Deursen | A comparison of Software Refinery and ASF+ SDF | |
Filman | Applying AI to software renovation | |
Ancona et al. | Integrating library modules into Pascal programs | |
Falla | The gamma software engineering system | |
Chambers | The Cecil Language | |
Bever et al. | Database hosting in strongly-typed programming languages | |
Dong | Transforming Visual Programs into Java and Vice Versa | |
Duncan | Implementing internal program representations with Ada and Ada 9X | |
Cooper | Barbados: An integrated persistent programming environment |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): CA JP |
|
AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AT BE CH DE DK ES FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE |
|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
DFPE | Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101) | ||
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2201882 Country of ref document: CA Ref country code: CA Ref document number: 2201882 Kind code of ref document: A Format of ref document f/p: F |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 1995938757 Country of ref document: EP |
|
WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 1995938757 Country of ref document: EP |
|
WWG | Wipo information: grant in national office |
Ref document number: 1995938757 Country of ref document: EP |