A comparative study of static and profile-based heuristics for inlining

Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Dynamic and Adaptive Compilation and Optimization, DYNAMO 2000

Volumn , Issue , 2000, Pages 52-64

  Arnold, Matthew ^a   Fink, Stephen ^b   Sarkar, Vivek ^b   Sweeney, Peter F ^b  

^a IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS; COMBINATORIAL OPTIMIZATION; INTERACTIVE DEVICES; PROGRAM COMPILERS;

CODE SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDIES; INLINING; KNAPSACK PROBLEMS; META-ALGORITHMS; OPTIMIZING COMPILERS;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 85009355518     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/351397.351416     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. F. E. Allen and J. Cocke. A catalogue of optimizing transformations. In Design and Optimization of Compilers, pages 1-30. Prentice-Hall, 1972.
2. B. Alp em, D. Attanasio, J. J. Barton, A. Cocchi, S. Plynn Hummel, D. Lieber, T. Ngo, M. Mergen, J. Shepherd, and S. Smith. Implementation of Jalepeno in Java. In ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, November 1999.
3. B. Alpern, A. Cocchi, D. Lieber, M. Mergen, and V. Sarkar. Jalapeno - a compiler-supported Java virtual machine for servers. In ACM SIGPLAN 1999 Workshop on Compiler Support for System Software (WCSSS'99), May 1999. Also available as 1NRIA report No. 0228, March 1999.
4. G. Amnions, T. Ball, and J.R. Larus. Exploiting hardware performance counters with flow and context sensitive profiling. In SIGPLAN '97 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 1997.
5. A. Ayers, R. Gottlieb, and R. Schooler. Aggressive inlining. In SIGPLAN '97 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 134145, June 1997.
6. M.G. Burke, J.-D. Choi, S. Fink, D. Grove, M. Hind, V. Sarkar, M.J. Serrano, V.C. Sreedhar, H. Srinivasan, and J. Whaley. The Jalapeno Dynamic Optimizing Compiler for Java. In ACM Java Grande Conference, June 1999.
7. P. P. Chang, S. A. Mahlke, W. Y. Chen, and W.-M. W. Hwu. Profile-guided automatic inline expansion for c programs. Software - Practice and Experience, 22(5):349-369, May 1992.
8. K. D. Cooper, M. W. Hall, and L. Torcaon. Unexpected side effects of inline substitution: A case study. ACM LOPLAS, l(l):22-32, March 1992.
9. The Standard Performance Eval- uation Corporation. SPEC JVM98 Benchmarks, ht tp://www. spec. org/osg/j vm98/, 1998.
10. J. Dean and C. Chambers. Towards better inlining decisions using inlining trials. In Proc. of the 1994 ACM Conf. on LISP and Functional Programming, 1994.
11. J. Dean, D. Grove, and C Chambers. Optimization of object-oriented programs using static class hierarchy analysis. In the 9th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, 1995.
12. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractibility: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, 1979.
13. D. Grove, J. Dean, C. Garrett, and C. Chambers. Profile-guided receiver class prediction. In A CM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 108-123, October 1995.
14. S. Jagannathan and A. Wright. Flow-directed inlining. In SIGPLAN '96 Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 193205, May 1996.
15. O. Kaser and C.R. Ramkrishnan. Evaluating inlining techniques. Computer Languages, 24:55-72, 1998.
16. Robert W. Scheifler. An analysis of inline substitution for a structured programming language. CACM, 20(9), September 1977.
17. Oscar Waddell and R. Kent Dybvig. Fast and effective procedure inlining. In 4th International Symposium on Static Analysis, September 1997.