William Blume

dblp:85/5639 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 1998
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 5 · 4 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
3 papers
Program analysis · 55% Compilers and program optimization · 46%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Parallel and multicore computing · 56% Performance modeling and evaluation · 44%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
data dependence analysis
0.021998
Nonlinear and Symbolic Data Dependence Testing · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1998
The range test: a dependence test for symbolic, non-linear expressions · SC 1994
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.021998
Nonlinear and Symbolic Data Dependence Testing · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1998
The range test: a dependence test for symbolic, non-linear expressions · SC 1994
Compilers and program optimization
parallelizing compiler
0.021998
Nonlinear and Symbolic Data Dependence Testing · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1998
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992
Compilers and program optimization › parallelization › automatic parallelization
loop parallelization
0.011994
The range test: a dependence test for symbolic, non-linear expressions · SC 1994
Compilers and program optimization › parallelization
automatic parallelization
0.011992
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992
Compilers and program optimization › loop transformation
loop restructuring
0.011992
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.011992
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computing
parallel application performance
0.011992
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992
Program analysis
static analysis
0.011998
Nonlinear and Symbolic Data Dependence Testing · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1998
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel programming models
automatic parallelization
0.011992
Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs · IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst. 1992

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

constraint propagation · 0.0symbolic inequality proving · 0.0restructuring techniques · 0.0performance measurement · 0.0symbolic analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1998 Nonlinear and Symbolic Data Dependence Testing
abstract
One of the most crucial qualities of an optimizing compiler is its ability to detect when different data references access the same storage location. Such references are said to be data-dependent and they impose constraints on the amount of program modifications the compiler can apply for improving the program's performance. For parallelizing compilers, the most important program constructs to investigate are loops and the array references they contain. In previous work, we have found a serious limitation of current data dependence tests to be that they cannot handle loop bounds or array subscripts that are symbolic, nonlinear expressions. In this paper, we describe a dependence test, called the range test, that can handle such expressions. Briefly, the range test proves independence by determining whether certain symbolic inequalities hold for a permutation of the loop nest. Powerful symbolic analyses and constraint propagation techniques were developed to prove such inequalities. The range test has been implemented in Polaris, a parallelizing compiler developed at the University of Illinois. We present measurements of the range test's performance and compare it with state-of-the-art tests.
William Blume, Rudolf Eigenmann
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst.1
1994 An Overview of Symbolic Analysis Techniques Needed for the Effective Parallelization of the Perfect Benchmarks
abstract
We have identified symbolic analysis techniques that will improve the effectiveness of parallelizing Fortran compilers, with emphasis upon data dependence analysts. We have done this by comparing the automatically and manually parallelized versions of the Perfect Benchmarks®. The techniques include: symbolic data dependence tests for nonlinear expressions, constraint propagation, array summary information, and run time tests.
William Blume, Rudolf Eigenmann
ICPP (2)1
1994 The range test: a dependence test for symbolic, non-linear expressions
abstract
Most current data dependence tests cannot handle loop bounds or array subscripts that are symbolic, nonlinear expressions (e.g. A(n*i+j), where 0/spl les/j/spl les/n). We describe a dependence test, called the range test, that can handle such expressions. Briefly, the range test proves independence by determining whether certain symbolic inequalities hold for a permutation of the loop nest. Powerful symbolic analyses and constraint propagation techniques were developed to prove such inequalities, The range test has been implemented in Polaris, a parallelizing compiler being developed at the University of Illinois.>
William Blume, Rudolf Eigenmann
SC1
1992 Performance Analysis of Parallelizing Compilers on the Perfect Benchmarks Programs
abstract
The speedups of the Perfect Benchmarks codes that result from automatic parallelization are reported. The performance gains caused by individual restructuring techniques have also been measured. Specific reasons for the successes and failures of the transformations are discussed, and potential improvements that result in measurably better program performance are analyzed. The most important findings are that available restructurers often cause insignificant performance gains in real programs and that only few restructuring techniques contribute to this gain. However, it can be shown that there is potential for advancing compiler technology so that many of the most important loops in these programs can be parallelized.>
William Blume, Rudolf Eigenmann
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst.1
1991 An Effectiveness Study of Parallelizing Compiler Techniques
Rudolf Eigenmann, William Blume
ICPP (2)2