BOLT: a Practical Binary Optimizer for Data Centers and Beyond

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

BOLT: a Practical Binary Optimizer for Data Centers and Beyond BOLT: A Practical Binary Optimizer for Data Centers and Beyond Maksim Panchenko Rafael Auler Bill Nell Guilherme Ottoni Facebook, Inc. Menlo Park, CA, USA fmaks,rafaelauler,bnell,[email protected] Abstract the large sizes of these applications also impose scala- Performance optimization for large-scale applications has bility challenges to apply FDO to them. Instrumentation- recently become more important as computation continues based profilers incur significant memory and computa- to move towards data centers. Data-center applications are tional performance costs, often making it impractical to generally very large and complex, which makes code lay- gather accurate profiles from a production system. To sim- out an important optimization to improve their performance. plify deployment and increase adoption, it is desirable This has motivated recent investigation of practical tech- to have a system that can obtain profile data for FDO niques to improve code layout at both compile time and link from unmodified binaries running in their normal produc- time. Although post-link optimizers had some success in the tion environments. This is possible through the use of past, no recent work has explored their benefits in the context sample-based profiling, which enables high-quality pro- of modern data-center applications. files to be gathered with minimal operational complexity. In this paper, we present BOLT, a post-link optimizer This is the approach taken by tools such as Ispike [21], built on top of the LLVM framework. Utilizing sample- AutoFDO [6], and HFSort [25]. This same principle is used based profiling, BOLT boosts the performance of real-world as the basis of the BOLT tool presented in this paper. applications even for highly optimized binaries built with Profile data obtained via sampling can be retrofitted to both feedback-driven optimizations (FDO) and link-time op- multiple points in the compilation chain. The point into timizations (LTO). We demonstrate that post-link perfor- which the profile data is used can vary from compilation mance improvements are complementary to conventional time (e.g. AutoFDO [6]), to link time (e.g. LIPO [18] and compiler optimizations, even when the latter are done at a HFSort [25]), to post-link time (e.g. Ispike [21]). In gen- whole-program level and in the presence of profile infor- eral, the earlier in the compilation chain the profile infor- mation. We evaluated BOLT on both Facebook data-center mation is inserted, the larger is the potential for its impact, workloads and open-source compilers. For data-center appli- because more phases and optimizations can benefit from cations, BOLT achieves up to 8.0% performance speedups this information. This benefit has motivated recent work on on top of profile-guided function reordering and LTO. For compile-time and link-time FDO techniques. At the same the GCC and Clang compilers, our evaluation shows that time, post-link optimizations, which in the past were ex- BOLT speeds up their binaries by up to 20.4% on top of FDO plored by a series of proprietary tools such as Spike [8], arXiv:1807.06735v2 [cs.PL] 12 Oct 2018 and LTO, and up to 52.1% if the binaries are built without Etch [28], FDPR [11], and Ispike [21], have not attracted FDO and LTO. much attention in recent years. We believe that the lack of in- terest in post-link optimizations is due to folklore and the in- 1. Introduction tuition that this approach is inferior because the profile data is injected very late in the compilation chain. Given the large scale of data centers, optimizing their work- In this paper, we demonstrate that the intuition described loads has recently gained a lot of interest. Modern data- above is incorrect. The important insight that we leverage center applications tend to be very large and complex pro- in this work is that, although injecting profile data earlier grams. Due to their sheer amount of code, optimizing the in the compilation chain enables its use by more optimiza- code locality for these applications is very important to im- tions, injecting this data later enables more accurate use of prove their performance. the information for better code layout. In fact, one of the The large size and performance bottlenecks of data-center main challenges with AutoFDO is to map the profile data, applications make them good targets for feedback-driven collected at the binary level, back to the compiler’s interme- optimizations (FDO), also called profile-guided optimiza- diate representations [6]. In the original compilation used to tions (PGO), particularly code layout. At the same time, 1 Optimized Source Code Parser Compiler IR Code Gen. Object FilesLinker Executable Binary Binary Opt. Executable Binary Profile Data Figure 1: Example of a compilation pipeline and the various alternatives to retrofit sample-base profile data. produce the binary where the profile data is collected, many 2.1 Why sample-based profiling? optimizations are applied to the code by the compiler and Feedback-driven optimizations (FDO) have been proved to linker before the machine code is emitted. In a post-link op- help increase the impact of code optimizations in a variety timizer, which operates at the binary level, this problem is of systems (e.g. [6, 9, 13, 18, 24]). Early developments in much simpler, resulting in more accurate use of the profile this area relied on instrumentation-based profiling, which data. This accuracy is particularly important for low-level requires a special instrumented build of the application to optimizations such as code layout. collect profile data. This approach has two drawbacks. First, We demonstrate the finding above in the context of a it complicates the build process, since it requires a special static binary optimizer we built, called BOLT. BOLT is a build for profile collection. Second, instrumentation typi- modern, retargetable binary optimizer built on top of the cally incurs very significant CPU and memory overheads. LLVM compiler infrastructure [16]. Our experimental eval- These overheads generally render instrumented binaries in- uation on large real-world applications shows that BOLT can appropriate for running in real production environments. improve performance by up to 20.41% on top of FDO and In order to increase the adoption of FDO in production LTO. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that this im- environments, recent work has investigated FDO-style tech- provement is mostly due to the improved code layout that is niques based on sample-based profiling [6, 7, 25]. Instead enabled by the more accurate usage of sample-based profile of instrumentation, these techniques rely on much cheaper data at the binary level. sampling using hardware profile counters available in mod- Overall, this paper makes the following contributions: ern CPUs, such as Intel’s Last Branch Records (LBR) [15]. This approach is more attractive not only because it does not 1. It describes the design of a modern, open-source post- require a special build of the application, but also because link optimizer built on top of the LLVM infrastructure.1 the profile-collection overheads are negligible. By address- 2. It demonstrates empirically that a post-link optimizer ing the two main drawbacks of instrumentation-based FDO is able to better utilize sample-based profiling data to techniques, sample-based profiling has increased the adop- improve code layout compared to a compiler-based ap- tion of FDO-style techniques in complex, real-world pro- proach. duction systems [6, 25]. For these same practical reasons, 3. It shows that neither compile-time, link-time, nor post- we opted to use sample-based profiling in this work. link-time FDO supersedes the others but, instead, they are complementary. 2.2 Why a binary optimizer? This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 motivates the case for using sample-based profiling and static binary Sample-based profile data can be leveraged at various levels optimization to improve performance of large-scale applica- in the compilation pipeline. Figure 1 shows a generic com- tions. Section 3 then describes the architecture of the BOLT pilation pipeline to convert source code into machine code. binary optimizer, followed by a description of the optimiza- As illustrated in Figure 1, the profile data may be injected at tions that BOLT implements in Section 4 and a discussion different program-representation levels, ranging from source about profiling techniques in Section 5. An evaluation of code, to the compiler’s intermediate representations (IR), to BOLT and a comparison with other techniques is presented the linker, to post-link optimizers. In general, the designers in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 discusses related work and of any FDO tool are faced with the following trade-off. On Section 8 concludes the paper. the one hand, injecting profile data earlier in the pipeline al- lows more optimizations along the pipeline to benefit from this data. On the other hand, since sample-based profile data 2. Motivation must be collected at the binary level, the closer a level is In this section, we motivate the post-link optimization ap- to this representation, the higher the accuracy with which proach used by BOLT. the data can be mapped back to this level’s program repre- sentation. Therefore, a post-link binary optimizer allows the 1 BOLT is available at https://github.com/facebookincubator/BOLT. profile data to be used with the greatest level of accuracy. 2 (01) function foo(int x) { mation at a very low level prevents earlier optimizations in (02) if (x > 0) { (03) ... // B1 the compilation pipeline from leveraging this information. (04) } else { Therefore, with this approach, any optimization that we want (05) ... // B2 (06) } to benefit from the profile data needs to be applied at the bi- (07) } nary level.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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×ÓfغcÓÑ 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 18Mca42c .Net Programming (C#)
    18MCA42C .NET PROGRAMMING (C#) Introduction to .NET Framework .NET is a software framework which is designed and developed by Microsoft. The first version of .Net framework was 1.0 which came in the year 2002. It is a virtual machine for compiling and executing programs written in different languages like C#, VB.Net etc. It is used to develop Form-based applications, Web-based applications, and Web services. There is a variety of programming languages available on the .Net platform like VB.Net and C# etc.,. It is used to build applications for Windows, phone, web etc. It provides a lot of functionalities and also supports industry standards. .NET Framework supports more than 60 programming languages in which 11 programming languages are designed and developed by Microsoft. 11 Programming Languages which are designed and developed by Microsoft are: C#.NET VB.NET C++.NET J#.NET F#.NET JSCRIPT.NET WINDOWS POWERSHELL IRON RUBY IRON PYTHON C OMEGA ASML(Abstract State Machine Language) Main Components of .NET Framework 1.Common Language Runtime(CLR): CLR is the basic and Virtual Machine component of the .NET Framework. It is the run-time environment in the .NET Framework that runs the codes and helps in making the development process easier by providing the various services such as remoting, thread management, type-safety, memory management, robustness etc.. Basically, it is responsible for managing the execution of .NET programs regardless of any .NET programming language. It also helps in the management of code, as code that targets the runtime is known as the Managed Code and code doesn’t target to runtime is known as Unmanaged code.
    [Show full text]
  • Dmon: Efficient Detection and Correction of Data Locality
    DMon: Efficient Detection and Correction of Data Locality Problems Using Selective Profiling Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Ian Neal, University of Michigan; Gilles Pokam, Intel Corporation; Barzan Mozafari and Baris Kasikci, University of Michigan https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi21/presentation/khan This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 15th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. July 14–16, 2021 978-1-939133-22-9 Open access to the Proceedings of the 15th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation is sponsored by USENIX. DMon: Efficient Detection and Correction of Data Locality Problems Using Selective Profiling Tanvir Ahmed Khan Ian Neal Gilles Pokam Barzan Mozafari University of Michigan University of Michigan Intel Corporation University of Michigan Baris Kasikci University of Michigan Abstract cally at run time. In fact, as we (§6.2) and others [2,15,20,27] Poor data locality hurts an application’s performance. While demonstrate, compiler-based techniques can sometimes even compiler-based techniques have been proposed to improve hurt performance when the assumptions made by those heuris- data locality, they depend on heuristics, which can sometimes tics do not hold in practice. hurt performance. Therefore, developers typically find data To overcome the limitations of static optimizations, the locality issues via dynamic profiling and repair them manually. systems community has invested substantial effort in devel- Alas, existing profiling techniques incur high overhead when oping dynamic profiling tools [28,38, 57,97, 102]. Dynamic used to identify data locality problems and cannot be deployed profilers are capable of gathering detailed and more accurate in production, where programs may exhibit previously-unseen execution information, which a developer can use to identify performance problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Compile Time and Runtime
    COMPILE TIME AND RUNTIME Compile time and runtime are two distinctly different times during the active life of a computer program. Compile time is when the program is compiled; runtime is when it executes (on either a physical or virtual computer). Programmers use the term static to refer to anything that is created during compile time and stays fixed during the program run. They use the term dynamic to refer to things that are created and can change during execution. Example In application MyApp shown below, the data type of variable tax is statically set to double for the entire program run. Its value is dynamically set when the assignment statement (marked **) executes. public class MyApp { public static void main( String [] args ) { double tax; . ** tax = price * TAX_RATE; . } } Compiler Tasks The main tasks of the compiler are to: Check program statements for errors and report them. Generate the machine instructions that carry out the operations specified by the program. To do this, the compiler must gather as much information as possible about the items (e.g. variables, classes, objects, etc.) used in the program. Compile Time and Runtime Page 1 Example Consider this Java assignment statement: x = y2 + z; To determine if it is correct, the compiler needs to know if y2 is a declared variable (perhaps the programmer meant to type y*2). To generate correct bytecode, the compiler needs to know the data types of the variables (integer addition is a different machine instruction than floating-point addition). Declarations Program text that is primarily meant to provide information to the compiler is called a declaration, which the compiler processes by collecting the information given.
    [Show full text]
  • Surgical Precision JIT Compilers
    Surgical Precision JIT Compilers Tiark Rompf ‡∗ Arvind K. Sujeethy Kevin J. Browny HyoukJoong Leey Hassan Chafizy Kunle Olukotuny zOracle Labs: {first.last}@oracle.com ∗EPFL: {first.last}@epfl.ch yStanford University: {asujeeth, kjbrown, hyouklee, kunle}@stanford.edu Abstract class Record(fields: Array[String], schema: Array[String]) { def apply(key: String) = fields(schema indexOf key) Just-in-time (JIT) compilation of running programs provides more def foreach(f: (String,String) => Unit) = optimization opportunities than offline compilation. Modern JIT for ((k,i) <- schema.zipWithIndex) f(k,fields(i)) compilers, such as those in virtual machines like Oracle’s HotSpot } def processCSV(file: String)(yld: Record => Unit) = { for Java or Google’s V8 for JavaScript, rely on dynamic profiling val lines = FileReader(file) as their key mechanism to guide optimizations. While these JIT val schema = lines.next.split(",") compilers offer good average performance, their behavior is a black while (lines.hasNext) { box and the achieved performance is highly unpredictable. val fields = lines.next().split(",") In this paper, we propose to turn JIT compilation into a preci- val rec = new Record(fields,schema) sion tool by adding two essential and generic metaprogramming yld(rec) } facilities: First, allow programs to invoke JIT compilation explic- } itly. This enables controlled specialization of arbitrary code at run- time, in the style of partial evaluation. It also enables the JIT com- Figure 1. Example: Processing CSV files. piler to report warnings and errors to the program when it is un- 1. Introduction able to compile a code path in the demanded way. Second, allow the JIT compiler to call back into the program to perform compile- Just-in-time (JIT) compilation of running programs presents more time computation.
    [Show full text]
  • Csc 553 Principles of Compilation 2 : Interpreters Department Of
    Compiler tokens source Lexer Parser CSc 553 AST Principles of Compilation IR AST VM Code Interm. Semantic Gen Code Gen Analyser 2 : Interpreters VM Department of Computer Science Interpreter University of Arizona Get Next Execute Instruction Instruction [email protected] Copyright c 2011 Christian Collberg Kinds of Interpreters An interpreter is like a CPU, only in software. The compiler generates virtual machine (VM) code rather than native machine code. "APL/Prolog−style (load−and−go/interactive) interpreter" The interpreter executes VM instructions rather than native machine code. Read, lex, read Source parse, VM eval Code Code print Interpreters are semantics slow Often 10–100 times slower than executing machine Interpret code directly. portable The virtual machine code is not tied to any particular Read, lex, Source VM parse, CodeFile.vm architecture. Code Code semantics Interpreters work well with read Read very high-level, dynamic languages CodeFile.vm eval (APL,Prolog,ICON) where a lot is unknown at VM print compile-time (array bounds, etc). "Java−style interpreter" Interpret Kinds of Interpreters. Actions in an Interpreter Just−In−Time (JIT,Dynamic) Compiler Read, lex, Source VM parse, CodeFile.vm Internally, an interpreter consists of Code Code semantics 1 The interpreter engine, which executes the VM instructions. 2 Memory for storing user data. Often separated as a heap and a stack. Native 3 A stream of VM instructions. CodeFile.vm Compile Execute Code Actions in an Interpreter. Stack-Based Instruction Sets Instruct− ionstream add I := Get next instruction. Many virtual machine instruction sets (e.g. Java bytecode, store Forth) are stack based.
    [Show full text]
  • Translation and Evaluation
    Translation and evaluation A mental model for compile-time metaprogramming Document Number: P0992r0 Audience: SG7 Date: Apr 2, 2018 Reply-to: Andrew Sutton <[email protected]> The purpose of this note is to document my understanding of what it means to evaluate an expression at compile time. During my work on reflection and metaprogramming, I’ve often found myself getting lost in the various interactions between the compiler (or translator) and the evaluation subsystem. In particular, it is not always obvious what information is allowed to flow from the translation to evaluation and back. Value-based reflection and metaprogramming also add new wrinkles to the language, since they move both values and code in between translation and evaluation. Constructing a sound mental model early on is useful. This note should be helpful for anybody writing metaprogramming proposals. We begin by defining two terms: • Translation is a process concerned with lexical, syntactic, and semantic analysis of source code. The state of a translation maintains data related to the interpretation of text as programs, and includes tokens, ASTs, scopes, lookup tables, etc. • Evaluation (or execution) is a process concerned with computation. The state of an evaluation maintains data related to computation, and contains instruction streams, runtime stores, call stacks, etc. In the conventional use of C++, these two processes are physically separate: You compile a program, and then later you run the program. You cannot, during program execution, request the instantiation of a template. The translation process is no longer active at the time of execution. (This is not C#.) The constant expression facility allows a translation to request the evaluation of an expression at particular points in the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Compile-Time RTL Interpreters
    Compile-Time RTL Interpreters Sahand Kashani James R. Larus EPFL EPFL Switzerland Switzerland ABSTRACT encode the precise timing and physical structure of a circuit. Com- There is no doubt that high-level synthesis (HLS) tools have greatly pilers must preserve the semantics of their input programs, but eased accelerator development. However, many accelerators have pipelining changes the input-to-output latency of a circuit and thus already been written in a RTL language and cannot benefit from its original timing. the automated techniques commonly used by HLS tools. Pipelining Retiming is a transparent transformation that decreases a cir- is one such technique and must painstakingly be performed by a cuit’s clock period by moving existing registers around to balance human when a RTL accelerator needs to be migrated to a higher- delays. Current FPGA toolchains perform retiming under the hood, speed FPGA for example. This paper provides a first step to bringing but its applicability highly depends on the structure of the input HLS-like automated pipelining directly to accelerators written in a circuit. For example, Intel’s HyperFlex FPGA architecture has first- RTL language. class support for retiming by including bypassable registers on every routing segment of the device to help balance long routing 1 INTRODUCTION paths. However, these special registers do not support asynchro- Pipelining is the main mechanism for creating high-frequency ac- nous resets, clock enables, or initial values. Design registers which celerators. All designs—written directly in a RTL language or gen- use such features can therefore not be retimed to a routing segment erated through HLS—exhibit some form of pipelined structure to register to decrease the clock period.
    [Show full text]
  • (Just-In-Time) Compile-Time] MOP for Advanced Dispatching
    ALIA4J’s [(Just-In-Time) Compile-Time] MOP for Advanced Dispatching Christoph Bockisch Andreas Sewe Martin Zandberg Software Engineering group CASED Software Engineering group University of Twente Technische Universität Darmstadt, University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands Gernamy Enschede, The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we propose such an approach for languages based The ALIA4J approach provides a framework for implementing ex- on dispatching, a language feature that has seen much experimen- ecution environments with support for advanced dispatching as tation by language designers in recent years, ranging from pred- found, e.g., in aspect-oriented or predicate dispatching languages. It icate dispatching [7] over aspect-oriented programming [12] and context-oriented programming [10] to various domain-specific lan- also defines an extensible meta-model acting as intermediate repre- 1 sentation for dispatching declarations, e.g., pointcut-advice or pred- guages. The ALIA4J project therefore provides an approach for icate methods. From the intermediate representation of all dispatch implementing such programming languages. As demonstrated in declarations in the program, the framework derives an execution our previous work [5], advanced dispatching is a mechanism that model for which ALIA4J specifies an generic execution strategy. subsumes the various styles of dispatching mentioned above. The meta-object protocol (MOP) formed by the meta-model and To make advanced dispatching implementable in a flexible fash- the framework are defined such that new programming language ion, we employ a meta-object protocol (MOP) together with a concepts can be implemented modularly.
    [Show full text]