Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Dan Grove

dblp:73/985 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1993
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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 · 67% Compilers and program optimization · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
data flow analysis
0.011993
Interprocedural Constant Propagation: A Study of Jump Function Implementations · PLDI 1993
Program analysis › static analysis
interprocedural analysis
0.011993
Interprocedural Constant Propagation: A Study of Jump Function Implementations · PLDI 1993
Compilers and program optimization › interprocedural optimization
interprocedural constant propagation
0.011993
Interprocedural Constant Propagation: A Study of Jump Function Implementations · PLDI 1993

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

trace-driven evaluation · 0.0comparative study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1993 Interprocedural Constant Propagation: A Study of Jump Function Implementations
abstract
An implementation of interprocedural constant propagation must model the transmission of values through each procedure. In the framework proposed by Callahan, Cooper, Kennedy, and Torczon in 1986, this intraprocedural propagation is modeled with a jump function. While Callahan et al. propose several kinds of jump functions, they give no data to help choose between them. This paper reports on a comparative study of jump function implementations. It shows that different jump functions produce different numbers of useful constants; it suggests a particular function, called the pass-through parameter jump function, as the most cost-effective in practice.
Dan Grove, Linda Torczon
PLDI1