Benchmark design for robust profile-Directed optimization

2007 SPEC Benchmark Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages

  Berube, Paul ^a   Amaral, Jośe Nelson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARK DESIGNS; CODE TRANSFORMATION; EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES; INPUT SENSITIVITY; OFF-LINE LEARNING; OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES; OPTIMIZING COMPILERS; PROFILE-DIRECTED OPTIMIZATIONS;

BENCHMARKING; COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; COSINE TRANSFORMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 84883684257     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. 11th computer olympiad. http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/Olympiad2006/, June 2006.
2. 14th world computer-chess championship. http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ wccc2006/June 2006.
3. Swiss-prot protein knowledgebase. http://www.expasy.org/sprot/November 2006.
4. P. Berube. Aestimo: A feedback-directed optimization evaluation tool. Master's thesis, University of Alberta, October 2005.
5. P. Berube and J. N. Amaral. Aestimo: a feedback-directed optimization evaluation tool. In 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pages 251 - 260, Austin, Texas, March 2006.
6. A. Das, J. Lu, H. Chen, J. Kim, P.-C. Yew, W.-C. Hsu, and D.-Y. Chen. Performance of runtime optimization on blast. In Proceedings of the international symposium on Code generation and optimization, pages 86-96, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.
7. L. Eeckhout, H. Vandierendonck, and K. D. Bosschere. Quantifying the impact of input data sets on program behavior and its applications. Journal of Instruction-Level Parallelism, 5:1-33, 2 2003.
8. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning, chapter 7, pages 214-221. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 2003.
9. Intel Corporation. Intel C++ compiler options. ftp://download.intel.com/ support/performancetools/c/linux/v9/coptscls.pdf, 2006.
10. International Business Machines. Detailed descriptions of the XL fortran compiler options. http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pseries/v5r3/index. jsp?topic=/com.ibm.xlf101a.doc/xlfcr/optsdetails.htm.
11. P. Kulkarni, S. Hines, J. Hiser, D. Whalley, J. Davidson, and D. Jones. Fast searches for effective optimization phase sequences. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 165- 198, 2004.
12. T. M. Mitchell. Does machine learning really work? In AI Magazine, volume 3, pages 11-20. The American Association of Artificial Intelligence, Fall 1997.
13. Z. Pan and R. Eigenmann. Rating compiler optimizations for automatic performance tuning. In ACM/IEEE Conference on High Performance Networking and Computing (SC04), pages 14-23, November 2004.
14. A. Phansalkar, A. Joshi, L. Eeckhout, and L. K. John. Measuring program similarity: Experiments with SPEC CPU benchmark suites. In IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2005.
15. S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, chapter 1. Prentice Hall, 2 edition, 2003.
16. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC CPU2006. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/, August 2006.
17. M. Stephenson and S. P. Amarasinghe. Predicting unroll factors using supervised classification. In International Syumposium on Code Generation and Optimization, pages 123-134, 2005.
18. R. Weicker and K. Dixit. (osgcpu-10955) re: Your question to SPEC about input data selection for benchmarks. Personal email correspondences, July 2004.