From Source to Execution

Copy Link

Starting a Program • Two phases from source code to execution • Build time From Source to Execution » compiler creates assembly code » assembler creates machine code CSE 410, Spring 2005 » linker creates an executable Computer Systems • Run time » loader moves the executable into memory and starts the program http://www.cs.washington.edu/410 Build Time Symbol Table • You’re experts on compiling from source to assembly and hand crafted assembly • Symbols are names of global variables or labels • Two parts to translating from assembly to (including procedure entry points) machine language: • Symbol table associates symbols with their addresses in the object file » Instruction encoding (including translating pseudoinstructions) • This allows files compiled separately to be linked » Translating labels to addresses • Label translations go in the symbol table LabelA: 0x01031ff0 bigArray 0x10006000 Modular Program Design The Compiler + Assembler • Small projects might use only one file • Translate source files to object files » Any time any one line changes, recompile and • Object files reassemble the whole thing » Contain machine instructions (1’s & 0’s) • For larger projects, recompilation time and » Bookkeeping information complexity management is significant • Procedures and variables the object file defines • Solution: split project into modules • Procedures and variables the source files use but are undefined (unresolved references) » compile and assemble modules separately • Debugging information associating machine » link the object files instructions with lines of source code The Linker Determining Addresses • Some addresses change during memory layout • The linker’s job is to “stitch together” the • Modules were compiled in isolation object files: • Absolute addresses must be relocated 1. Place the data modules in memory space • Object file keeps track of instructions that use 2. Determine the addresses of data and labels absolute addresses 3. Match up references between modules • Creates an executable file text text Resolving References Linker Example main.o area.o • For example, in a word processing program, code: main: code: A=area(5.0) ! Area:return PI*r*r an input module calls a spell check module static data: static data: ! PI = 3.1415 • Module address is unresolved at compile time defined symbols: defined symbols: ! main, PI ! Area • The linker matches unresolved symbols to undefined symbols: undefined symbols: locations in other modules at link time ! Area ! PI main.exe • In SPIM, “main” is resolved when your header program is loaded code: main:A=area(5.0) Area:return PI*r*r static data: PI = 3.1415 defined symbols: main, PI, Area Libraries The Executable • Some code is used so often, it is bundled into • End result of compiling, assembling, and libraries for common access linking: the executable • Libraries contain most of the code you use but » Header, listing the lengths of the other segments didn’t write: e.g., printf() » Text segment • Library code is (often) merged with yours at » Static data segment link time » Potentially other segments, depending on architecture & OS conventions main.o main.exe libc.a Run Time • When a program is started ... » Some dynamic linking may occur • some symbols aren’t defined until run time • Windows’ dlls (dynamic link library) » The segments are loaded into memory » The OS transfers control to the program and it runs • We’ll learn a lot more about this during the OS part of the course.

Recommended publications

The LLVM Instruction Set and Compilation Strategy

The LLVM Instruction Set and Compilation Strategy Chris Lattner Vikram Adve University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign lattner,vadve ¡ @cs.uiuc.edu Abstract This document introduces the LLVM compiler infrastructure and instruction set, a simple approach that enables sophisticated code transformations at link time, runtime, and in the field. It is a pragmatic approach to compilation, interfering with programmers and tools as little as possible, while still retaining extensive high-level information from source-level compilers for later stages of an application’s lifetime. We describe the LLVM instruction set, the design of the LLVM system, and some of its key components. 1 Introduction Modern programming languages and software practices aim to support more reliable, flexible, and powerful software applications, increase programmer productivity, and provide higher level semantic information to the compiler. Un- fortunately, traditional approaches to compilation either fail to extract sufficient performance from the program (by not using interprocedural analysis or profile information) or interfere with the build process substantially (by requiring build scripts to be modified for either profiling or interprocedural optimization). Furthermore, they do not support optimization either at runtime or after an application has been installed at an end-user’s site, when the most relevant information about actual usage patterns would be available. The LLVM Compilation Strategy is designed to enable effective multi-stage optimization (at compile-time, link-time, runtime, and offline) and more effective profile-driven optimization, and to do so without changes to the traditional build process or programmer intervention. LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine) is a compilation strategy that uses a low-level virtual instruction set with rich type information as a common code representation for all phases of compilation.
The Interplay of Compile-Time and Run-Time Options for Performance Prediction Luc Lesoil, Mathieu Acher, Xhevahire Tërnava, Arnaud Blouin, Jean-Marc Jézéquel

The Interplay of Compile-time and Run-time Options for Performance Prediction Luc Lesoil, Mathieu Acher, Xhevahire Tërnava, Arnaud Blouin, Jean-Marc Jézéquel To cite this version: Luc Lesoil, Mathieu Acher, Xhevahire Tërnava, Arnaud Blouin, Jean-Marc Jézéquel. The Interplay of Compile-time and Run-time Options for Performance Prediction. SPLC 2021 - 25th ACM Inter- national Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A, Sep 2021, Leicester, United Kingdom. pp.1-12, 10.1145/3461001.3471149. hal-03286127 HAL Id: hal-03286127 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03286127 Submitted on 15 Jul 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Interplay of Compile-time and Run-time Options for Performance Prediction Luc Lesoil, Mathieu Acher, Xhevahire Tërnava, Arnaud Blouin, Jean-Marc Jézéquel Univ Rennes, INSA Rennes, CNRS, Inria, IRISA Rennes, France [email protected] ABSTRACT Both compile-time and run-time options can be configured to reach Many software projects are configurable through compile-time op- specific functional and performance goals. tions (e.g., using ./configure) and also through run-time options (e.g., Existing studies consider either compile-time or run-time op- command-line parameters, fed to the software at execution time).
Three Architectural Models for Compiler-Controlled Speculative

Three Architectural Mo dels for Compiler-Controlled Sp eculative Execution Pohua P. Chang Nancy J. Warter Scott A. Mahlke Wil liam Y. Chen Wen-mei W. Hwu Abstract To e ectively exploit instruction level parallelism, the compiler must move instructions across branches. When an instruction is moved ab ove a branch that it is control dep endent on, it is considered to b e sp eculatively executed since it is executed b efore it is known whether or not its result is needed. There are p otential hazards when sp eculatively executing instructions. If these hazards can b e eliminated, the compiler can more aggressively schedule the co de. The hazards of sp eculative execution are outlined in this pap er. Three architectural mo dels: re- stricted, general and b o osting, whichhave increasing amounts of supp ort for removing these hazards are discussed. The p erformance gained by each level of additional hardware supp ort is analyzed using the IMPACT C compiler which p erforms sup erblo ckscheduling for sup erscalar and sup erpip elined pro cessors. Index terms - Conditional branches, exception handling, sp eculative execution, static co de scheduling, sup erblo ck, sup erpip elining, sup erscalar. The authors are with the Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, Illinoi s, 61801. 1 1 Intro duction For non-numeric programs, there is insucient instruction level parallelism available within a basic blo ck to exploit sup erscalar and sup erpip eli ned pro cessors [1][2][3]. Toschedule instructions b eyond the basic blo ck b oundary, instructions havetobemoved across conditional branches.
Design and Implementation of Generics for the .NET Common Language Runtime

Design and Implementation of Generics for the .NET Common Language Runtime Andrew Kennedy Don Syme Microsoft Research, Cambridge, U.K. fakeÒÒ¸d×ÝÑeg@ÑicÖÓ×ÓfØºcÓÑ Abstract cally through an interface deﬁnition language, or IDL) that is nec- essary for language interoperation. The Microsoft .NET Common Language Runtime provides a This paper describes the design and implementation of support shared type system, intermediate language and dynamic execution for parametric polymorphism in the CLR. In its initial release, the environment for the implementation and inter-operation of multiple CLR has no support for polymorphism, an omission shared by the source languages. In this paper we extend it with direct support for JVM. Of course, it is always possible to “compile away” polymor- parametric polymorphism (also known as generics), describing the phism by translation, as has been demonstrated in a number of ex- design through examples written in an extended version of the C# tensions to Java [14, 4, 6, 13, 2, 16] that require no change to the programming language, and explaining aspects of implementation JVM, and in compilers for polymorphic languages that target the by reference to a prototype extension to the runtime. JVM or CLR (MLj [3], Haskell, Eiffel, Mercury). However, such Our design is very expressive, supporting parameterized types, systems inevitably suffer drawbacks of some kind, whether through polymorphic static, instance and virtual methods, “F-bounded” source language restrictions (disallowing primitive type instanti- type parameters, instantiation at pointer and value types, polymor- ations to enable a simple erasure-based translation, as in GJ and phic recursion, and exact run-time types.
Opportunities and Open Problems for Static and Dynamic Program Analysis Mark Harman∗, Peter O’Hearn∗ ∗Facebook London and University College London, UK

1 From Start-ups to Scale-ups: Opportunities and Open Problems for Static and Dynamic Program Analysis Mark Harman∗, Peter O’Hearn∗ ∗Facebook London and University College London, UK Abstract—This paper1 describes some of the challenges and research questions that target the most productive intersection opportunities when deploying static and dynamic analysis at we have yet witnessed: that between exciting, intellectually scale, drawing on the authors’ experience with the Infer and challenging science, and real-world deployment impact. Sapienz Technologies at Facebook, each of which started life as a research-led start-up that was subsequently deployed at scale, Many industrialists have perhaps tended to regard it unlikely impacting billions of people worldwide. that much academic work will prove relevant to their most The paper identifies open problems that have yet to receive pressing industrial concerns. On the other hand, it is not significant attention from the scientific community, yet which uncommon for academic and scientific researchers to believe have potential for profound real world impact, formulating these that most of the problems faced by industrialists are either as research questions that, we believe, are ripe for exploration and that would make excellent topics for research projects. boring, tedious or scientifically uninteresting. This sociological phenomenon has led to a great deal of miscommunication between the academic and industrial sectors. I. INTRODUCTION We hope that we can make a small contribution by focusing on the intersection of challenging and interesting scientific How do we transition research on static and dynamic problems with pressing industrial deployment needs. Our aim analysis techniques from the testing and verification research is to move the debate beyond relatively unhelpful observations communities to industrial practice? Many have asked this we have typically encountered in, for example, conference question, and others related to it.
A Parallel Program Execution Model Supporting Modular Software Construction

A Parallel Program Execution Model Supporting Modular Software Construction Jack B. Dennis Laboratory for Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract as a guide for computer system design—follows from basic requirements for supporting modular software construction. A watershed is near in the architecture of computer sys- The fundamental theme of this paper is: tems. There is overwhelming demand for systems that sup- port a universal format for computer programs and software The architecture of computer systems should components so users may beneﬁt from their use on a wide reﬂect the requirements of the structure of pro- variety of computing platforms. At present this demand is grams. The programming interface provided being met by commodity microprocessors together with stan- should address software engineering issues, in dard operating system interfaces. However, current systems particular, the ability to practice the modular do not offer a standard API (application program interface) construction of software. for parallel programming, and the popular interfaces for parallel computing violate essential principles of modular The positions taken in this presentation are contrary to or component-based software construction. Moreover, mi- much conventional wisdom, so I have included a ques- croprocessor architecture is reaching the limit of what can tion/answer dialog at appropriate places to highlight points be done usefully within the framework of superscalar and of debate. We start with a discussion of the nature and VLIW processor models. The next step is to put several purpose of a program execution model. Our Parallelism processors (or the equivalent) on a single chip.
Tricore Architecture Manual for a Detailed Discussion of Instruction Set Encoding and Semantics

User’s Manual, v2.3, Feb. 2007 TriCore 32-bit Unified Processor Core Embedded Applications Binary Interface (EABI) Microcontrollers Edition 2007-02 Published by Infineon Technologies AG 81726 München, Germany © Infineon Technologies AG 2007. All Rights Reserved. Legal Disclaimer The information given in this document shall in no event be regarded as a guarantee of conditions or characteristics (“Beschaffenheitsgarantie”). With respect to any examples or hints given herein, any typical values stated herein and/or any information regarding the application of the device, Infineon Technologies hereby disclaims any and all warranties and liabilities of any kind, including without limitation warranties of non- infringement of intellectual property rights of any third party. Information For further information on technology, delivery terms and conditions and prices please contact your nearest Infineon Technologies Office (www.infineon.com). Warnings Due to technical requirements components may contain dangerous substances. For information on the types in question please contact your nearest Infineon Technologies Office. Infineon Technologies Components may only be used in life-support devices or systems with the express written approval of Infineon Technologies, if a failure of such components can reasonably be expected to cause the failure of that life-support device or system, or to affect the safety or effectiveness of that device or system. Life support devices or systems are intended to be implanted in the human body, or to support and/or maintain and sustain and/or protect human life. If they fail, it is reasonable to assume that the health of the user or other persons may be endangered. User’s Manual, v2.3, Feb.
Visual Representations of Executing Programs

Visual Representations of Executing Programs Steven P. Reiss Department of Computer Science Brown University Providence, RI 02912-1910 401-863-7641, FAX: 401-863-7657 {spr}@cs.brown.edu Abstract Programmers have always been curious about what their programs are doing while it is exe- cuting, especially when the behavior is not what they are expecting. Since program execution is intricate and involved, visualization has long been used to provide the programmer with appro- priate insights into program execution. This paper looks at the evolution of on-line visual repre- sentations of executing programs, showing how they have moved from concrete representations of relatively small programs to abstract representations of larger systems. Based on this examina- tion, we describe the challenges implicit in future execution visualizations and methodologies that can meet these challenges. 1. Introduction An on-line visual representation of an executing program is a graphical display that provides information about what a program is doing as the program does it. Visualization is used to make the abstract notion of a computer executing a program concrete in the mind of the programmer. The concurrency of the visualization in con- junction with the execution lets the programmer correlate real time events (e.g., inputs, button presses, error messages, or unexpected delays) with the visualization, making the visualization more useful and meaningful. Visual representations of executing programs have several uses. First, they have traditionally been used for program understanding as can be seen from their use in most algorithm animation systems [37,52]. Second, in various forms they have been integrated into debuggers and used for debugging [2,31].
Adding Self-Healing Capabilities to the Common Language Runtime

Adding Self-healing capabilities to the Common Language Runtime Rean Griffith Gail Kaiser Columbia University Columbia University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract systems can leverage to maintain high system availability is to perform repairs in a degraded mode of operation[23, 10]. Self-healing systems require that repair mechanisms are Conceptually, a self-managing system is composed of available to resolve problems that arise while the system ex- four (4) key capabilities [12]; Monitoring to collect data ecutes. Managed execution environments such as the Com- about its execution and operating environment, performing mon Language Runtime (CLR) and Java Virtual Machine Analysis over the data collected from monitoring, Planning (JVM) provide a number of application services (applica- an appropriate course of action and Executing the plan. tion isolation, security sandboxing, garbage collection and Each of the four functions participating in the Monitor- structured exception handling) which are geared primar- Analyze-Plan-Execute (MAPE) loop consumes and pro- ily at making managed applications more robust. How- duces knowledgewhich is integral to the correct functioning ever, none of these services directly enables applications of the system. Over its execution lifetime the system builds to perform repairs or consistency checks of their compo- and refines a knowledge-base of its behavior and environ- nents. From a design and implementation standpoint, the ment. Information in the knowledge-base could include preferred way to enable repair in a self-healing system is patterns of resource utilization and a “scorecard” tracking to use an externalized repair/adaptation architecture rather the success of applying specific repair actions to detected or than hardwiring adaptation logic inside the system where it predicted problems.
Identifying Executable Plans

Identifying executable plans Tania Bedrax-Weiss∗ Jeremy D. Frank Ari K. Jónssony Conor McGann∗ NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269-2 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, ftania,frank,jonsson,[email protected] Abstract AI solutions for planning and plan execution often use declarative models to describe the domain of interest. Generating plans for execution imposes a different set The planning system typically uses an abstract, long- of requirements on the planning process than those im- term model and the execution system typically uses a posed by planning alone. In highly unpredictable ex- ecution environments, a fully-grounded plan may be- concrete, short-term model. In most systems that deal come inconsistent frequently when the world fails to with planning and execution, the language used in the behave as expected. Intelligent execution permits mak- declarative model for planning is different than the lan- ing decisions when the most up-to-date information guage used in the execution model. This approach en- is available, ensuring fewer failures. Planning should forces a rigid separation between the planning model acknowledge the capabilities of the execution system, and the execution model. The execution system and the both to ensure robust execution in the face of uncer- planning system have to agree on the semantics of the tainty, which also relieves the planner of the burden plan, and having two separate models requires the sys- of making premature commitments. We present Plan tem designer to replicate the information contained in Identification Functions (PIFs), which formalize what the planning model in the execution model.
Tribits Lifecycle Model Version

SANDIA REPORT SAND2012-0561 Unlimited Release Printed February 2012 TriBITS Lifecycle Model Version 1.0 A Lean/Agile Software Lifecycle Model for Research-based Computational Science and Engineering and Applied Mathematical Software Roscoe A. Bartlett Michael A. Heroux James M. Willenbring Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or rep- resent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any speciﬁc commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reﬂect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.
INTRODUCTION to .NET FRAMEWORK NET Framework .NET Framework Is a Complete Environment That Allows Developers to Develop, Run, An

INTRODUCTION TO .NET FRAMEWORK NET Framework .NET Framework is a complete environment that allows developers to develop, run, and deploy the following applications: Console applications Windows Forms applications Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) applications Web applications (ASP.NET applications) Web services Windows services Service-oriented applications using Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) Workflow-enabled applications using Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) .NET Framework also enables a developer to create sharable components to be used in distributed computing architecture. NET Framework supports the object-oriented programming model for multiple languages, such as Visual Basic, Visual C#, and Visual C++. NET Framework supports multiple programming languages in a manner that allows language interoperability. This implies that each language can use the code written in some other language. The main components of .NET Framework? The following are the key components of .NET Framework: .NET Framework Class Library Common Language Runtime Dynamic Language Runtimes (DLR) Application Domains Runtime Host Common Type System Metadata and Self-Describing Components Cross-Language Interoperability .NET Framework Security Profiling Side-by-Side Execution Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) The .NET Framework is shipped with compilers of all .NET programming languages to develop programs. Each .NET compiler produces an intermediate code after compiling the source code. 1 The intermediate code is common for all languages and is understandable only to .NET environment. This intermediate code is known as MSIL. IL Intermediate Language is also known as MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) or CIL (Common Intermediate Language). All .NET source code is compiled to IL. IL is then converted to machine code at the point where the software is installed, or at run-time by a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler.