Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chris Bentley
dblp:57/36
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program analysis · 50% Operating systems · 50% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
High-performance computing · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis › error detection
array bounds checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Implicit array bounds checking on 64-bit architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2006 |
Operating systems › resource management › memory management
virtual memory |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Implicit array bounds checking on 64-bit architectures · ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 2006 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
compiler and OS infrastructure · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Implicit array bounds checking on 64-bit architecturesabstractSeveral programming languages guarantee that array subscripts are checked to ensure they are within the bounds of the array. While this guarantee improves the correctness and security of array-based code, it adds overhead to array references. This has been an obstacle to using higher-level languages, such as Java, for high-performance parallel computing, where the language specification requires that all array accesses must be checked to ensure they are within bounds. This is because, in practice, array-bounds checking in scientific applications may increase execution time by more than a factor of 2. Previous research has explored optimizations to statically eliminate bounds checks, but the dynamic nature of many scientific codes makes this difficult or impossible. Our approach is, instead, to create a compiler and operating system infrastructure that does not generate explicit bounds checks. It instead places arrays inside of Index Confinement Regions (ICRs), which are large, isolated, mostly unmapped virtual memory regions. Any array reference outside of its bounds will cause a protection violation; this provides implicit bounds checking. Our results show that when applying this infrastructure to high-performance computing programs written in Java, the overhead of bounds checking relative to a program with no bounds checks is reduced from an average of 63% to an average of 9%. Chris Bentley, Scott A. Watterson, David K. Lowenthal, Barry Rountree |
ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. | 1 |
| 2004 | Implicit java array bounds checking on 64-bit architectureabstractInterest in using Java for high-performance parallel computing has increased in recent years. One obstacle that has inhibited Java from widespread acceptance in the scientific community is the language requirement that all array accesses must be checked to ensure they are within bounds. In practice, array bounds checking in scientific applications may increase execution time by more than a factor of 2. Previous research has explored optimizations to statically eliminate bounds checks, but the dynamic nature of many scientific codes makes this difficult or impossible.Our approach is instead to create a new Java implementation that does not generate explicit bounds checks. It instead places arrays inside of Index Confinement Regions (ICRs), which are large, isolated, mostly unmapped virtual memory regions. Any array reference outside of its bounds will cause a protection violation; this provides implicit bounds checking. Our results show that our new Java implementation reduces the overhead of bounds checking from an average of 63% to an average of 9% on our benchmarks. Chris Bentley, Scott A. Watterson, David K. Lowenthal, Barry Rountree |
ICS | 1 |