Gated Single Assignment Form

  • 1.

    Alfred V. Aho, Ravi I. Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, second edition, 1986.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    J. R. Allen. Dependence Analysis for Subscripted Variables and Its Application to Program Transformations. PhD thesis, Rice University, April 1983.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    B. Alpern, M. N. Wegman, and F. K. Zadeck. Detecting equality of variables in programs. In Conference Record of the Fifteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, pages 1–11, San Diego, CA, January 1988.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    David Bailey, Eric Barszcz, Leonardo Dagum, and Horst Simon. NAS parallel benchmark results. Technical Report RNR-92-002, NASA Ames Research Center, February 1993.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    R. Ballance, A. Maccabe, and K. Ottenstein. The Program Dependence Web: a representation supporting control-, data-, and demand-driven interpretation of imperative languages. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 257–271, White Plains, New York, June 1990.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Philip L. Campbell, Ksheerabdhi Krishna, and Robert A. Ballance. Refining and defining the Program Dependence Web. Technical Report TR 93-6, Department of Computer Science, University of New Mexico, 1993.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Robert S. Cartwright and Matthias Felleisen. The semantics of program dependence. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '89 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Portland, Oregon, June 1989.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Jong-Deok Choi, Ron Cytron, and Jeanne Ferrante. Automatic construction of sparse data flow evaluation graphs. In Conference Record of the Eighteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, pages 55–66, January 1991.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    G. Cybenko, L. Kipp, L. Pointer, and D. Kuck. Supercomputer performance evaluation and the Perfect benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1990.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    R. Cytron, J. Ferrante, and V. Sarkar. Compact representations for control dependence. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 337–351, White Plains, New York, June 1990.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    R. Cytron, J. Ferrante, and V. Sarkar. Experience using control dependence in PTRAN. In D. Gelernter, A. Nicolau, and D. Padua, editors, Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing. The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Ron Cytron, Jeanne Ferrante, Barry K. Rosen, Mark N. Wegman, and F. Kenneth Zadeck. Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(4):451–490, October 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Raja Das, Joel Saltz, and Reinhard von Hanxleden. Slicing analysis and indirect accesses to distributed arrays. In Preliminary Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, Portland, OR, August 1993.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    J. Ferrante, K. J. Ottenstein, and J. D. Warren. The program dependence graph and its use in optimization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 9(3):319–349, July 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    John Field. A simple rewriting semantics for realistic imperative programs and its application to program analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pages 98–107, San Francisco, California, June 1992.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    G. Goff, K. Kennedy, and C. Tseng. Practical dependence testing. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '91 Conference on Program Language Design and Implementation, Toronto, Canada, June 1991.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    M. R. Haghighat and C. D. Polychronopoulos. Symbolic program analysis and optimization for parallelizing compilers. In Preliminary Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, New Haven, CT, August 1992.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    S. Horwitz, J. Prins, and T. Reps. On the adequacy of program dependence graphs for representing programs. In Conference Record of the Fifteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, pages 146–157, San Diego, CA, January 1988.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Francois Irigoin. Interprocedural analyses for programming environments. In J. J. Dongarra and B. Tourancheau, editors, Environments and Tools for Parallel Scientific Computing. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    K. Kennedy, K. S. McKinley, and C. Tseng. Analysis and transformation in the ParaScope Editor. In Proceedings of the 1991 ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, Cologne, Germany, June 1991.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    T. Lengauer and R. E. Tarjan. A fast algorithm for finding dominators in a flowgraph. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1:121–141, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Allan Porterfield. Software Methods for Improvement of Cache Performance on Supercomputer Applications. PhD thesis, Rice University, May 1989. Available as Rice COMP TR88-93.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Rebecca P. Selke. A Semantic Framework for Program Dependence. PhD thesis, Rice University, 1992.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    R. E. Tarjan. Testing flow graph reducibility. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 9:355–365, 1974.Google Scholar

  • 25.

    J. Uniejewski. SPEC Benchmark Suite: designed for today's advanced systems. SPEC Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1, SPEC, Fall 1989.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Michael Wolfe. Beyond induction variables. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '92 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 162–174, San Francisco, California, June 1992.Google Scholar

  • 27.

    Wuu Yang, Susan Horwitz, and Thomas Reps. Detecting program components with equivalent behaviors. Technical Report 840, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, April 1989.Google Scholar

  • - Хейл хмыкнул. Он понимал: выбраться из шифровалки ему удастся, только если он пустит в ход все навыки поведения в конфликтных ситуациях, которые приобрел на военной службе. Стратмор придвинулся ближе, держа «беретту» в вытянутой руке прямо перед .

    0 comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *