Procedures classification for optimizing strategy assignment

Optimizing compilers make significant contribution to the performance of modern computer systems. Among them VLIW architecture processors are the most compiler-dependent, since their performance is ensured by effective compile time scheduling of multiple commands in a single clock. This leads to an eventual complication of VLIW compilers. Taking as an example optimizing compiler developed for the Elbrus family processors, it runs consequently over 300 stages of code optimization in basic mode. Such an amount of stages is needed to obtain decent performance, but it also makes compilation quite time consuming. It turns out that the main reason for compilation time increase when using high level compilation is applying some aggressive unreversable code transformations, which eventually leads to code size increase that is also unwanted. In addition, there remains the problem of using a number of optimizations that are useful for rare contexts. To reach the objectives, namely increasing performance, decreasing compilation time and code size, it is reasonable to choose an appropriate strategy on an early compilation stage according to some procedure specific characteristics. This paper discusses the procedures classification problems for this task and suggests several possible solutions.

optimizing compiler, optimizing phases sequence, performance tuning, reducing compilation time, procedures classification, optimizing compiler, optimizing phases sequence, performance tuning, reducing compilation time, procedures classification

1. Prasad A. Kulkarni, W.Zhao, H.Moon, et al. Finding Effective Optimization Phase Sequence. [A]. Proc. of ACM SIGPLAN 2003 Conference on Languages, Compilers and Tools for Embedded Systems, US: 2003.

2. Spyridon Triantafyllis, Manish Vachharajani, Neil Vachharajani, David I. August. Compiler optimization-space exploration. Proceedings of the international symposium on Code generation and optimization: feedback-directed and runtime optimization, March 23-26, 2003, San Francisco, California.

3. Keith D. Cooper, Alexander Grosul, Timothy J. Harvey, Steven Reeves, Devika Subramanian, Linda Torczon, Todd Waterman. ACME: adaptive compilation made efficient. LCTES '05 Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED conference on Languages, compilers, and tools for embedded systems, Pages 69 - 77

4. Prasad A. Kulkarni, David B. Whalley, Gary S. Tyson. Evaluating Heuristic Optimization Phase Order Search Algorithms. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, p.157-169, March 11-14, 2007

5. Prasad A. Kulkarni, Michael R. Jantz, David B. Whalley. Improving both the performance benefits and speed of optimization phase sequence searches. LCTES'10 Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED 2010 conference on Languages, compilers, and tools for embedded systems, April 2010

6. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation, http://www.spec.org/

7. Suresh Purini, Lakshya Jain. Finding good optimization sequences covering program space. Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO), January 2013.

8. M. Haneda, P. M. W. Knijnenburg, H. A. G. Wijshoff. Generating new general compiler optimization settings. Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference on Supercomputing, June 20-22, 2005, Cambridge, Massachusetts

9. Jain, Murty and Flynn. Data Clustering: A Review. ACM Comp. Surv., 1999.

10. Judea Pearl, Stuart Russell. Bayesian Networks. UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Technical Report (R-277), November 2000.