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.

Chris Hoffmann

dblp:94/3277 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 91% Memory systems · 9%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Runtime systems and virtual machines · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.112006
The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking › benchmark design
benchmark suite design
0.112006
The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization
0.112006
The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006

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

time-series metrics · 0.1statistical metrics · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2006 The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis
abstract
Since benchmarks drive computer science research and industry product development, which ones we use and how we evaluate them are key questions for the community. Despite complex runtime tradeoffs due to dynamic compilation and garbage collection required for Java programs, many evaluations still use methodologies developed for C, C++, and Fortran. SPEC, the dominant purveyor of benchmarks, compounded this problem by institutionalizing these methodologies for their Java benchmark suite. This paper recommends benchmarking selection and evaluation methodologies, and introduces the DaCapo benchmarks, a set of open source, client-side Java benchmarks. We demonstrate that the complex interactions of (1) architecture, (2) compiler, (3) virtual machine, (4) memory management, and (5) application require more extensive evaluation than C, C++, and Fortran which stress (4) much less, and do not require (3). We use and introduce new value, time-series, and statistical metrics for static and dynamic properties such as code complexity, code size, heap composition, and pointer mutations. No benchmark suite is definitive, but these metrics show that DaCapo improves over SPEC Java in a variety of ways, including more complex code, richer object behaviors, and more demanding memory system requirements. This paper takes a step towards improving methodologies for choosing and evaluating benchmarks to foster innovation in system design and implementation for Java and other managed languages.
Steve Blackburn, Robin Garner, Chris Hoffmann, Asjad M. Khan, Kathryn S. McKinley, Rotem Bentzur, Amer Diwan, Daniel Feinberg, Daniel Frampton, Samuel Z. Guyer, Martin Hirzel, Antony L. Hosking, Maria Jump, Han Bok Lee, J. Eliot B. Moss, Aashish Phansalkar, Darko Stefanovic, Thomas VanDrunen, Daniel von Dincklage, Ben Wiedermann
OOPSLA3