Course Overview

Course Learning Objectives
This course examines the fundamental theory and practice of implementing today's programming languages. Students should emerge with a good appreciation for the implementation issues and strategies behind making programs in high level programming languages work correctly and efficiently on a target machine. A major part of the course is the practical experience of implementing various phases of a compiler for a small object-oriented programming language. Students learn translation methodology that is useful in many other situations in addition to compilation, including command interpreters, report-generating systems, programmable applications, configuration file handling, preprocessors, debuggers, static program analysis tools, testing tools, virtual machines, integrated development environments, and many other software engineering tools.

You should consider taking CISC 471 / 672 if you are curious about:

• the inner workings of a basic compiler
• the implementation of object-oriented programming language features
• building a large software system starting with a base library of useful utilities
• the answers to many of your questions about how programming languages work
• the issues in gaining good performance from a high level language program on a particular target architecture

AND you have the proper prerequisites. Note: There is no assumption of previous coursework in compilers.

Prerequisite: CISC 320: Algorithms and Advanced Programming or permission of instructor.

Meeting Times: MWF 3:35pm-4:25pm Purnell Hall 231.
Important announcements are usually made at the beginning of class. Quizzes will be given at the beginning of class on some Wednesdays.

Prerequisite: A class similar to CISC 320: Algorithms and Advanced Programming.
Instructor: John Cavazos, cavazos at cis.udel.edu 412 Smith Hall
Office Hours: Mondays, 1-2PM and Wednesdays, 12-1PM and by appointment.

Teaching Assistant: Yuanfang Chen, ychen@cis.udel.edu
103 Smith Hall
Office Hours: Wednesdays, 1-2PM and Friday, 1-2PM

Course Requirements

Required Textbook:

• Keith Cooper and Linda Torczon, Engineering a Compiler, Second Edition Morgan Kaufmann, 2011

Suggested References:

• John Levine, lex & yacc, O'Reilly and Associates, Inc., 1992.
• David Grune, Henri E. Bal, Ceriel J. H. Jacobs, Koen G. Langendoen, Modern Compiler Design, John Wiley and Sons, 2000, ISBN: 0471976970.
• Any MIPS or SPARC Reference.

Distinction between CISC471 and CISC672

Project Materials:

Programming Environment and Computer Usage:

The project will be written in Java. The project is typically done in teams of 3 (unless otherwise noted), but you are welcome to tackle it individually if desired. If you are not yet verse in this language, it is suggested that you read through an appropriate Java book and familiarize yourself with the language by writing some small programs. The last project will involve learning some of the MIPS assembly language. The testing of the last phase must be done on the SPIM simulator. You will use JLex and CUP.

Weekly Quizzes:

• Reinforce the concepts in recent classes and readings.
• Assess individual student understanding of recent topics/skills.
• Encourage class preparation.

Each quiz will take about 5 minutes at the beginning of class. It will contain 1-2 short questions based on recent class discussions and readings. There will be a quiz on some Tuesdays, unless announced otherwise. The quizes will focus on the previous week's classroom and reading topics. Each student's lowest two quiz grades will not be counted toward their final grade. Thus, there WILL BE NO MAKEUP quizzes. Any missed quizzes will be counted as zeros in the grading scheme above. Thus, if you miss more than two quizzes, all additional missed quizzes and all other quiz grades will be counted toward your final grade.

Requirements and Grading:

• (4%) Class participation and in-class activities, or (approved) department speaker seminars. All of these efforts count toward the class participation grade.
• (4%) Cool Test Program(s) (Individual)
• (5%) Scanner (individual)
• (8%) Parser
• (14%) Semantic Analyzer
• (15%) Code Generator
• (10%) Weekly Quizzes
• (20%) Midterm - first half of course
• (20%) Final Examination - second half of course

How to Increase your Learning in CISC 471 / 672:

• Read the textbook. At least read the chapter as each new topic is covered in class. Use the textbook as a reference during projects and for vocabulary and filling in the details of concepts covered in class and projects. The readings in this course are critical to your active participation in class meetings. Part of your grade is based on class participation. Besides, you should not expect to gain all understanding of the concepts from passively listening in the class periods alone.
• Speak up in class. This course is not meant to be a passive learning course, as it has been shown that the best learning occurs when the learner is an active participant, not a passive listener. Besides, classes are much more enjoyable when the audience actively participates!
• Take an active role in your group projects. Ask your group members to explain concepts you do not clearly understand, and share ideas among the group members. Meet regularly with your group.
• Form an informal study group outside of class. Compare your notes from class, work together on group projects, and discuss concepts you find unclear.
• Seek help if you start to feel lost, ASAP. Take advantage of instructor and TA office hours. Ask questions via email.

Course Policies

The due dates are to be taken seriously and you should not expect them to be extended. The pace of work is implicit in the due dates and necessary if you expect to finish by the end of the semester. Homeworks to be graded should be turned in at the start of class on the specified due date. Programming assignments should be dated before 11:59 PM on the due date. NO late programs or homeworks will be accepted FOR FULL CREDIT without discussion with me prior to the due date. If you can not reach me, leave a message on my voicemail. All other assignments not delivered by the due date are considered late.

My philosophy on late assignments is: (1) Everyone should try their best to complete all assignments by the specified due date. (2) People who work conscientiously to make the deadlines should be rewarded for their promptness and sacrifice of sleep. Thus, allowing others to hand in late assignments without some penalty is not fair to these people. However, there are various circumstances that may prevent you from completing an assignment by the due date. Allowing no late assignments would not give you much incentive to continue to work on the assignment, which is a major source of learning in this course. Thus, I believe late assignments are better than no assignment.

Late assignments will be penalized 5% off the total possible points if turned in within the first 24-hour period after the specified due date and time, and 5% per 24-hour period (or fraction of a day) (including weekends) after that time, up to a week after the due date. Late assignments will be accepted with penalty up to one week after the due date. Assignments submitted at any later time without an approved excuse will not be accepted. It is up to you to determine the version of your assignment to be graded. You must weigh the late penalty against the completeness of your assignment.

Regrading Policy:

If you are dissatisfied with a grade on a homework, programming assignment, or exam, you should consult the instructor directly within a week of the day the graded assignment was returned to you. No regrade requests will be considered after this week period.

Posting Grades:

With your permission, grades will be posted electronically via a link on the course web site. You will need to give me a secret code name for this posting in order to keep your grade posting anonymous. If no name is given, I will assume you do not want your grades to appear. Questions about accuracy of recorded grades should be addressed to me.

Policy on Academic Dishonesty:

You will be told specifically which assignments are to be done collaboratively in groups, and which ones should be done individually without collaboration. For individual assignments, you should be directing your questions to the instructor, not to other students, unless the question is a clarification question. Any evidence of collaboration other than this kind will be handled as stated in the Official Student Handbook of the University of Delaware. You should not be using or examining any program code used for projects for this course in any prior instantiations of this course. If you are in doubt regarding the requirements, please consult with me before you complete any requirement of this course.

Collaboration Policy:

General philosophy

This course requires a significant amount of programming. You are allowed to choose a programming partner for some or all of the programming assignments. This document should make it very clear what is and what isn't considered acceptable collaboration, so there is no ambiguity.

The general premise of this policy is that your submissions must be your own independent and original work. You should not give or receive any aid which makes the assigned tasks significantly easier. Discussion and help is allowed among students, but it is expected that you document any significant help that you receive. On my part, I will treat you with trust and will protect the honorable student's interests by investigating and prosecuting dishonorable behavior.

Collaboration on coding projects

"Your code is like your boyfriend or girlfriend. It's okay to talk about it on an abstract, high level. But you don't want to go into the specific details, and you certainly don't want to share."

- Pascal Van Hentenryck, Professor of CS, Brown University, 1997

Things that are always allowed

• Discussing material covered in lecture or handouts.
• Discussing the requirements of an assignment.
• Discussing features of any programming language (including the one for which we are writing a compiler).
• Discussing how to use the tools or development environments.
• Discussing general techniques of coding or debugging.
• Any discussion between the student and a TA, or me. You are welcome to discuss any and all ideas, design, code, debugging, and details with the course staff (TA and instructor). They are the best folks to talk to because they are knowledgeable about all the material and know how to help you without giving away the farm. They also have the authority to give you definitive answers to your questions.

Collaboration that is allowed if documented

Two students engaging in a more detailed discussion of the project specifics can cross into the area of collaboration that is acceptable only if documented. I require that you include the name of those whom you received specific assistance from and properly credit their contribution, as you would cite a reference in a research paper. Some examples:

• Discussing the design of the project. Design is a crucial part of the programming process, and discussion can be valuable, but you should take care to document any design input you got from others.
• Getting help from another student in order to debug your code. You should credit their assistance.
• Sharing advice about testing. For example, if the team next to you tells you about some lesson learned ("our program didn't handle the case where the input file didn't end with a newline") that you then use to improve your program's robustness, you should credit them for providing you with that insight.

Collaboration that is NOT allowed

• Copying code. This is the most blatant violation. You should not be copying anyone else's work. You should also not allow anyone else to copy yours. You should keep your work secure (restrict access on the filesystem, don't leave printouts lying around, etc.)
• Using work from past semesters. Using someone's work or solutions from a previous semester is an obvious violation.
• Looking for this project on the Internet and copying the code.
• Studying someone else's code. You should not be reading anyone else's code whether it is on the screen or written out by hand.
• Debugging someone else's code. Debugging along with someone makes it too easy to look over their code and allow (sometimes unintended) code-copying. Describing to someone a problem and asking for advice on how to track it down is okay, but you should do the actual debugging yourself.

Guidelines that specifically apply to programming partners

• Partnership is equal.We assume that both students will contribute roughly equally to the creation of each program. If you find that one partner is doing most or all of the work, you should end the partnership. Both partners are responsible for understanding and being able to explain the entire submission.
• Partnership is monogamous. You may work with at most one partner for the duration of any one assignment. If you start the assignment with a partner, you can either finish with that partner or separate into two individuals (each should note on their submission that part that was jointly conceived), but you cannot switch to another partner to finish that assignment. Two individuals who started on a project independently can join up to finish the project as long as they did not work with anyone else during that project. You are welcome to switch partners between assignments or do some assignments with a partner and others alone.

Collaboration on problem sets

There will be some written homework assignments. The expectations about academic integrity are similar for these assignments to those for the programming assignments, but there are some differences in the ground rules:

• The problem sets must be completed individually (you cannot hand in a joint solution with a partner).
• Your submitted solution should credit any student with whom you worked/discussed problems.
• A good rule of thumb is that you must be able to explain and duplicate all the steps in any work you submit.

Closing thoughts

Above all you should use your common sense. If you suspect that what you are about to do is a violation, play it safe and ask a staff member first rather than take risks with your academic career.

Cheating is taken very seriously in this course. Please do your part in maintaining a community where academic work is done with a high standard of integrity!

Some parts of this document are based on a similar collaboration policy for CS courses at Brown, Drexel, and Stanford.