Gated SSA-based demand-driven symbolic analysis for parallelizing compilers

In this paper, we present a GSA-based technique that performs more efficient and more precise symbolic analysis of predicated assignments, recurrences and index arrays. The efficiency is improved by using a backward substitution scheme that performs resolution of assertions on-demand and uses heuristics to limit the number of substitution. The precision is increased by utilizing the gating predicate information embedded in the GSA and the control dependence information in the program flow graph. Examples from array privatization are used to illustrate how the technique aids loop parallelization.

[1]  Thomas E. Cheatham,et al.  Symbolic Evaluation and the Analysis of Programs , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[2]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[3]  Rudolf Eigenmann,et al.  An Overview of Symbolic Analysis Techniques Needed for the Effective Parallelization of the Perfect Benchmarks , 1994, 1994 Internatonal Conference on Parallel Processing Vol. 2.

[4]  Lori A. Clarke,et al.  Applications of symbolic evaluation , 1985, J. Syst. Softw..

[5]  Rudolf Eigenmann,et al.  The range test: a dependence test for symbolic, non-linear expressions , 1994, Proceedings of Supercomputing '94.

[6]  M. Wegman,et al.  Global value numbers and redundant computations , 1988, POPL '88.

[7]  Rudolf Eigenmann,et al.  Symbolic analysis techniques for effective automatic parallelization , 1995 .

[8]  Mark N. Wegman,et al.  Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph , 1991, TOPL.

[9]  Williams Ludwell Harrison,et al.  Automatic recognition of induction variables and recurrence relations by abstract interpretation , 1990, PLDI '90.

[10]  David A. Padua,et al.  Efficient building and placing of gating functions , 1995, PLDI '95.

[11]  Nicolas Halbwachs,et al.  Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program , 1978, POPL.

[12]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  Abstract Interpretation and Application to Logic Programs , 1992, J. Log. Program..

[13]  James H. Morris,et al.  Subgoal induction , 1977, CACM.

[14]  Lawrence Rauchwerger,et al.  Polaris: Improving the Effectiveness of Parallelizing Compilers , 1994, LCPC.

[15]  Peng Tu.  E cient Building and Placing of Gating Functions , 1995 .

[16]  Bowen Alpern,et al.  Detecting equality of variables in programs , 1988, POPL '88.

[17]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[18]  Constantine D. Polychronopoulos,et al.  Symbolic Program Analysis and Optimization for Parallelizing Compilers , 1992, LCPC.

[19]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools , 1986, Addison-Wesley series in computer science / World student series edition.

[20]  George Cybenko,et al.  Supercomputer performance evaluation and the Perfect Benchmarks , 1990, ICS '90.

[21]  Arthur B. Maccabe,et al.  The program dependence web: a representation supporting control-, data-, and demand-driven interpretation of imperative languages , 1990, PLDI '90.

[22]  Joe D. Warren,et al.  The program dependence graph and its use in optimization , 1987, TOPL.

[23]  Paul Havlak,et al.  Construction of Thinned Gated Single-Assignment Form , 1993, LCPC.

[24]  Michael Wolfe,et al.  Beyond induction variables , 1992, PLDI '92.

[25]  Michael Wolfe,et al.  Beyond induction variables: detecting and classifying sequences using a demand-driven SSA form , 1995, TOPL.