Main ConferenceCC 2026

Accepted Papers

Call for Papers

The ACM SIGPLAN 2026 International Conference on Compiler Construction (CC 2026) is interested in work on processing programs in the most general sense: analyzing, transforming, or executing input programs that describe how a system operates, including traditional compiler construction as a special case.

Original contributions are solicited on the topics of interest, which include, but are not limited to:

• Compilation and interpretation techniques, including program representation, analysis, and transformation; code generation, optimization, and synthesis; the verification thereof.

• Design and implementation of novel language constructs, programming models, and domain-specific languages.

• Compiler design and construction for modern, emerging, or non-conventional domains of computing, e.g., AI and deep learning programming frameworks, EDA toolchains, high-level synthesis of hardware, database engines, quantum computing, and DNA computing.

• Compiler design and construction for modern, emerging, or non-conventional hardware, e.g., specialized AI chips and accelerators, quantum computing hardware, etc.

• Techniques, ranging from programming languages to micro-architectural support, for various domains of computing, including secure, parallel, distributed, embedded, or mobile environments.

• Run-time techniques, including memory management, virtual machines, and dynamic and just-in-time compilation.

• Programming tools, including refactoring editors, checkers, verifiers, compilers, debuggers, and profilers.

CC is an ACM SIGPLAN conference and implements guidelines and procedures recommended by SIGPLAN. Prospective authors should be aware of ACM’s Copyright policies. Proceedings will be made available online in the ACM digital library from one week before to one week after the conference.

Call for Tool and Practical Experience Papers

This year, CC will offer a second category of papers called “Tools and Practical Experience”. Papers in this category must either give a clear account of a tool’s functionality or summarize a practical experience with realistic case studies. The successful evaluation of an artifact is mandatory for a Tool Paper. Therefore, authors of work conditionally accepted as Tool Papers must submit an artifact to the Artifact Evaluation Committee. The successful evaluation of the artifact is a requirement for final acceptance.

Practical experience papers are encouraged, but not required, to submit an artifact to the Artifact Evaluation process.

The selection criteria for papers in this category are:

• Originality: Papers should present CC-related technologies applied to real-world problems with scope or characteristics that set them apart from previous solutions.

• Usability: The presented tools or compilers should have broad usage or applicability. They are expected to assist in CC-related research, or could be extended to investigate or demonstrate new technologies. If significant components are not yet implemented, the paper will not be considered.

• Documentation: The tool or compiler should be presented on a website giving documentation and further information about the tool.

• Benchmark Repository: A suite of benchmarks for testing should be provided.

• Availability: Authors are encouraged to make the tool or compiler available for public use.

• Foundations: Papers should incorporate the principles underpinning Compiler Construction (CC). However, a thorough discussion of theoretical foundations is not required; a summary of such should suffice.

• Artifact Evaluation: The submitted artifact must be functional and support the claims made in the paper. Submission of an artifact is mandatory for papers presenting a tool.

Tool and Practical Experience papers abide by the same limit of 10 pages in the ACM format, references excluded, and are not distinguished in the final proceedings. We encourage shorter submissions that give an account of how scientific ideas have been incorporated and used in practice.

Submission Guidelines

Submission site: https://cc26.hotcrp.com

All submissions must be made electronically through the conference submission website and include an abstract (100–400 words), author contact information, the full list of authors, and their affiliations. Full paper submissions must be in PDF format and printable on US letter-size paper.

All papers must be prepared in ACM Conference Format using the 2-column acmart format in 10pt font: use the options \documentclass[sigplan,10pt,review,anonymous]{acmart} for LaTeX, and interim-layout.docx for Word. The templates for LaTeX and Microsoft Word can be found at the SIGPLAN author information page. Important note: The Word template (interim-layout.docx) on the ACM website uses 9pt font; you need to increase it to 10pt.

Papers should contain a maximum of 10 pages of text (in a typeface no smaller than 10 point) or figures, NOT INCLUDING references. There is no page limit for references, and they must include the names of all authors (do not use et al.).

Appendices are not allowed, but the authors may submit anonymous supplementary material, such as proofs, source code, or data sets; all supplementary material must be in PDF or ZIP format. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

Papers may be resubmitted to the submission site multiple times until the deadline; however, only the last version submitted before the deadline will be reviewed. Papers that exceed the length requirement, that deviate from the expected format, or that are submitted late will be rejected.

Presentation

One or more authors of every accepted paper are required to register for the conference and present it in person at the conference venue. If travel is not ultimately possible due to unforeseen circumstances like visa denial, unexpected visa processing delays, or medical emergencies, please contact the program chairs.

ACM Publication Policies

CC follows ACM’s Copyright Policies. Prospective authors should adhere to SIGPLAN’s Republication Policy and to ACM’s Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

1. By submitting your article to an ACM Publication, you are hereby acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM’s new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects. Alleged violations of this policy or any ACM Publications Policy will be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM Publications Policy. https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects

2. Please ensure that you and your co-authors obtain an ORCID ID, so you can complete the publishing process for your accepted paper. ACM has been involved in ORCID from the start and we have recently made a commitment to collect ORCID IDs from all of our published authors. The collection process has started and will roll out as a requirement throughout 2022. We are committed to improving author discoverability, ensuring proper attribution, and contributing to ongoing community efforts around name normalization; your ORCID ID will help in these efforts.

Important update on ACM’s new open access publishing model for 2026 ACM conferences!

Starting January 1, 2026, ACM will fully transition to Open Access. All ACM publications, including those from ACM-sponsored conferences, will be 100% Open Access. Authors will have two primary options for publishing Open Access articles with ACM: the ACM Open institutional model or by paying Article Processing Charges (APCs). With over 2,600 institutions already part of ACM Open, the majority of ACM-sponsored conference papers will not require APCs from authors or conferences (currently, around 76%).

Authors from institutions not participating in ACM Open will need to pay an APC to publish their papers, unless they qualify for a financial waiver. To find out whether an APC applies to your article, please consult the list of participating institutions in ACM Open and review the https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/policy-on-discretionary-open-access-apc-waivers. Keep in mind that waivers are rare and are granted based on specific criteria set by ACM.

Understanding that this change could present financial challenges, ACM has approved a temporary subsidy for 2026 to ease the transition and allow more time for institutions to join ACM Open. The subsidy will offer:

$250 APC for ACM/SIG members,

$350 for non-members.

This represents a 65% discount, funded directly by ACM. Authors are encouraged to help advocate for their institutions to join ACM Open during this transition period.

This temporary subsidized pricing will apply to all conferences scheduled for 2026.

Double-Blind Reviewing Process

CC uses a double-blind reviewing process. Authors will need to identify any potential conflicts of interest with PC, as defined in the SIGPLAN policy.

To facilitate the double-blind reviewing process, submissions (including supplementary material) should not reveal the identity of the authors in any way. Authors should leave out author names and affiliations from the body of their submission. They should also ensure that any references to the authors’ own related work should be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …” but rather “We build on the work of …”).

The purpose of this process is to help the PC and external reviewers reach an initial judgment about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult. In particular, important background references should not be omitted or anonymized.

Artifact Evaluation

Authors are encouraged to submit their artifacts for the Artifact Evaluation (AE). The Artifact Evaluation process begins after the acceptance notification, and is run by a separate committee whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the papers.

To ease the organization of the AE committee, we kindly ask authors to indicate at the time they submit the paper whether they are interested in submitting an artifact.

Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves.

Authors of accepted papers are encouraged, but not required, to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library.

Additional information will be made available later.

Publication Date

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of your conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

Artifact Submission

This document provides the guidelines to submit your artifacts for evaluation at ACM and IEEE conferences.

Motivation

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to reproduce results from CS papers. Voluntarily Artifact Evaluation (AE) was successfully introduced at program languages, systems and machine learning conferences and tournaments to validate experimental results by the independent AE Committee, share unified Artifact Appendices, and assign reproducibility badges.

AE promotes the reproducibility of experimental results and encourages artifact sharing to help the community quickly validate and compare alternative approaches. Authors are invited to formally describe all supporting material (code, data, models, workflows, results) using the unified Artifact Appendix and the Reproducibility Checklist template and submit it to the single-blind AE process. Reviewers will then collaborate with the authors to evaluate their artifacts and assign the following ACM reproducibility badges:

Preparing your Artifact Appendix and the Reproducibility Checklist

You need to prepare the Artifact Appendix describing all software, hardware and data set dependencies, key results to be reproduced, and how to prepare, run and validated experiments.

Though it is relatively intuitive and based on our past AE experience and your feedback, we strongly encourage you to check the the Artifact Appendix guide, artifact reviewing guide, the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation Guidelines, the NeurIPS reproducibility checklist and AE FAQs before submitting artifacts for evaluation!

You can find the examples of Artifact Appendices in the following reproduced papers.

Since the AE methodology is slightly different at different conferences, we introduced the unified Artifact Appendix with the Reproducibility Checklist in 2014 to help readers understand what was evaluated and how! Furthermore, artifact evaluation often helps to discover some minor mistakes in accepted papers - in such case you have a chance to add related notes and corrections in the Artifact Appendix of your camera-ready paper!

Preparing your experimental workflow

You can skip this step if you want to share your artifacts without the validation of experimental results - in such case your paper can still be entitled for the “artifact available” badge!

We strongly recommend you to provide at least some automation scripts to build your workflow, all inputs to run your workflow, and some expected outputs to validate results from your paper. You can then describe the steps to evaluate your artifact using README files or Jupyter Notebooks.

Feel free to reuse portable CM scripts being developed by the cTuning foundation, cKnowledge.org and MLCommons to automate common steps to prepare and run various benchmarks across continously changing software, hardware and data.

Making artifacts available to evaluators

Most of the time, the authors make their artifacts available to the evaluators via GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket or private repositories. Public artifact sharing allows optional “open evaluation” which we have successfully validated at ADAPT’16 and ASPLOS-REQUEST’18. It allows the authors to quickly fix encountered issues during evaluation before submitting the final version to archival repositories.

Other acceptable methods include: * Using zip or tar files with all related code and data, particularly when your artifact should be rebuilt on reviewers’ machines (for example to have a non-virtualized access to a specific hardware). * Using Docker, Virtual Box and other containers and VM images. * Arranging remote access to the authors’ machine with the pre-installed software - this is an exceptional cases when rare or proprietary software and hardware is used. You will need to privately send the private access information to the AE chairs.

Note that your artifacts will receive the ACM “artifact available” badge only if they have been placed on any publicly accessible archival repository such as Zenodo, FigShare, and Dryad. You will need to provide a DOI automatically assigned to your artifact by these repositories in your final Artifact Appendix!

Submitting artifacts

Write a brief abstract describing your artifact, the minimal hardware and software requirements, how it supports your paper, how it can be validated and what the expected result is. Do not forget to specify if you use any proprietary software or hardware! This abstract will be used by evaluators during artifact bidding to make sure that they have an access to appropriate hardware and software and have required skills.

Submit the artifact abstract and the PDF of your paper with the Artifact Appendix attached using https://cc26ae.hotcrp.com/.

Asking questions

If you have questions or suggestions, do not hesitate to get in touch with the the AE chair Bastian Hagedorn [bhagedorn AT nvidia DOT com]

Preparing your camera-ready paper

If you have successfully passed AE with at least one reproducibility badge, you will need to add up to 2 pages of your artifact appendix to your camera ready paper while removing all unnecessary or confidential information. This will help readers better understand what was evaluated and how.

Examples of reproduced papers with shared artifacts and Artifact Appendices:

• Some papers from the past AE (ASPLOS, MICRO, MLSys, Supercomputing, CGO, PPoPP, PACT, IA3, ReQuEST)
• Dashboards with reproduced results
• Paper “Highly Efficient 8-bit Low Precision Inference of Convolutional Neural Networks with IntelCaffe” from ACM ASPLOS-ReQuEST’18
• Paper DOI
• Artifact DOI
• Original artifact
• Portable automation
• Expected results
• Public scoreboard
• Paper “Software Prefetching for Indirect Memory Accesses” from CGO’17
• Portable automation at GitHub
• CK dashboard snapshot