Initial revision
This commit is contained in:
112
doc/ego/il/il1
Normal file
112
doc/ego/il/il1
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
|
||||
.bp
|
||||
.NH 1
|
||||
Inline substitution
|
||||
.NH 2
|
||||
Introduction
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
The Inline Substitution technique (IL)
|
||||
tries to decrease the overhead associated
|
||||
with procedure calls (invocations).
|
||||
During a procedure call, several actions
|
||||
must be undertaken to set up the right
|
||||
environment for the called procedure.
|
||||
.[
|
||||
johnson calling sequence
|
||||
.]
|
||||
On return from the procedure, most of these
|
||||
effects must be undone.
|
||||
This entire process introduces significant
|
||||
costs in execution time as well as
|
||||
in object code size.
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
The inline substitution technique replaces
|
||||
some of the calls by the modified body of
|
||||
the called procedure, hence eliminating
|
||||
the overhead.
|
||||
Furthermore, as the calling and called procedure
|
||||
are now integrated, they can be optimized
|
||||
together, using other techniques of the optimizer.
|
||||
This often leads to extra opportunities for
|
||||
optimization
|
||||
.[
|
||||
ball predicting effects
|
||||
.]
|
||||
.[
|
||||
carter code generation cacm
|
||||
.]
|
||||
.[
|
||||
scheifler inline cacm
|
||||
.]
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
An inline substitution of a call to a procedure P increases
|
||||
the size of the program, unless P is very small or P is
|
||||
called only once.
|
||||
In the latter case, P can be eliminated.
|
||||
In practice, procedures that are called only once occur
|
||||
quite frequently, due to the
|
||||
introduction of structured programming.
|
||||
(Carter
|
||||
.[
|
||||
carter umi ann arbor
|
||||
.]
|
||||
states that almost 50% of the Pascal procedures
|
||||
he analyzed were called just once).
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
Scheifler
|
||||
.[
|
||||
scheifler inline cacm
|
||||
.]
|
||||
has a more general view of inline substitution.
|
||||
In his model, the program under consideration is
|
||||
allowed to grow by a certain amount,
|
||||
i.e. code size is sacrificed to speed up the program.
|
||||
The above two cases are just special cases of
|
||||
his model, obtained by setting the size-change to
|
||||
(approximately) zero.
|
||||
He formulates the substitution problem as follows:
|
||||
.IP
|
||||
"Given a program, a subset of all invocations,
|
||||
a maximum program size, and a maximum procedure size,
|
||||
find a sequence of substitutions that minimizes
|
||||
the expected execution time."
|
||||
.LP
|
||||
Scheifler shows that this problem is NP-complete
|
||||
.[~[
|
||||
aho hopcroft ullman analysis algorithms
|
||||
.], chapter 10]
|
||||
by reduction to the Knapsack Problem.
|
||||
Heuristics will have to be used to find a near-optimal
|
||||
solution.
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
In the following chapters we will extend
|
||||
Scheifler's view and adapt it to the EM Global Optimizer.
|
||||
We will first describe the transformations that have
|
||||
to be applied to the EM text when a call is substituted
|
||||
in line.
|
||||
Next we will examine in which cases inline substitution
|
||||
is not possible or desirable.
|
||||
Heuristics will be developed for
|
||||
chosing a good sequence of substitutions.
|
||||
These heuristics make no demand on the user
|
||||
(such as making profiles
|
||||
.[
|
||||
scheifler inline cacm
|
||||
.]
|
||||
or giving pragmats
|
||||
.[~[
|
||||
ichbiah ada military standard
|
||||
.], section 6.3.2]),
|
||||
although the model could easily be extended
|
||||
to use such information.
|
||||
Finally, we will discuss the implementation
|
||||
of the IL phase of the optimizer.
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
We will often use the term inline expansion
|
||||
as a synonym of inline substitution.
|
||||
.sp 0
|
||||
The inverse technique of procedure abstraction
|
||||
(automatic subroutine generation)
|
||||
.[
|
||||
shaffer subroutine generation
|
||||
.]
|
||||
will not be discussed in this report.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user