US20090133005A1 - Method for validation of binary code transformations - Google Patents
Method for validation of binary code transformations Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20090133005A1 US20090133005A1 US12/206,578 US20657808A US2009133005A1 US 20090133005 A1 US20090133005 A1 US 20090133005A1 US 20657808 A US20657808 A US 20657808A US 2009133005 A1 US2009133005 A1 US 2009133005A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- program
- sequence
- control flow
- linear function
- invariant linear
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/40—Transformation of program code
- G06F8/41—Compilation
- G06F8/44—Encoding
- G06F8/443—Optimisation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/70—Software maintenance or management
- G06F8/75—Structural analysis for program understanding
Definitions
- the present disclosure relates to optimizing computer executable codes, and particularly to a method for validating binary code transformation.
- Optimizing executable code is a known technique to improve the performance of code that has already been linked and is ready for execution. It is typically performed using a runtime profile of the code. Different optimization techniques are available such as inlining and code restructuring, which transform the code to functionally equivalent form. If the code optimization does not correctly transform the code to functionally equivalent form, unpredictable consequences may result, such as a program crash.
- the method may comprise analyzing binary code of an executable program to produce a sequence of basic units; generating control flow graph associated with the sequence of basic units; generating invariant linear function representation based on the control flow graph; analyzing optimized transformation of the executable program to produce a second sequence of basic units; generating second control flow graph associated with the second sequence of basic units; generating second invariant linear function representation based on the second control flow graph; comparing the invariant linear function representation and the second invariant linear function representation; and identifying one or more incorrect transformations in the optimized transformation.
- a program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform the above method may also be provided.
- FIG. 1 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for validating binary code transformation in one embodiment of the present disclosure.
- FIG. 2 shows an example sequence of three basic blocks.
- FIG. 3 shows the FCG for the basic blocks in FIG. 2 .
- the binary code of the original program and the transformed program are analyzed, using various available techniques such as static techniques using relocation information and/or dynamic techniques by intercepting execution and recognizing the accessed basic units, and a control flow graph for both programs is generated. For each validated function, the two graphs are both traversed in consistent fashion, creating their linear invariant textual representations. These linear representations can be compared as simple text strings in order to identify incorrect transformation.
- FIG. 1 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for validating binary code transformation in one embodiment of the present disclosure. Steps 102 , 104 and 106 are performed for both the original and the transformed codes.
- program analysis begins.
- the executable program is analyzed using the FDPR (Feedback Directed Program Restructuring) technology. Briefly, FDPR optimizes the executable image of a program by collecting information on the behavior of the program while the program is used for some typical workload, and then creating a new version of the program that is optimized for that workload.
- the principal output of this analysis is a sequence of basic units. Basic units are the smallest elements of the program that stay intact under every reordering. In this embodiment of the disclosure, the basic units include two types, basic blocks and data objects.
- the basic blocks type includes instructions.
- the data objects type includes data, for example, read-only and writable.
- Data objects correspond to the high-level data objects defined in the source program, for examples arrays, structures, or scalars.
- a basic block is a sequence of instructions that can be entered only at its beginning and exited only at its end.
- FIG. 2 shows an example sequence of three basic blocks 202 , 204 , 206 , of which two 202 , 204 are adjacent.
- building a program control flow graph begins.
- building the CFG is done by connecting, with a directed edge, the exit point of each basic block A to the entry points of the basic blocks according to the way A terminates. For instance, if A terminates by a simple branch, connect to the target of the branch. If A terminates by a conditional branch, connect to both the target of the branch, as well as the following basic block (called the fall-through basic block). If A terminates by an indirect branch keep A unconnected at the moment, as the target is not known at this moment.
- FIG. 3 shows the CFG for the basic blocks in FIG. 2 .
- An edge in the CFG carries an execution count, that is, the number of times control passed along that edge when the program was executed. This information can be collected by various means, for example, the “pixie” tool, or the basic block profiling provided by standard compilers like GCC.
- An edge that carries relatively high execution count is termed hot edge.
- a basic block that executes many times relative to the average count is termed hot basic block.
- invariant linear function representation is created by consistently traversing the CFC. This step forms an invariant linear representation for a given function.
- Invariant representation refers to one or more invariants under a set of predefined optimization transformations of the function.
- An optimization transformation is a transformation of the code that preserves the semantics of the function while providing some potential improvement, typically in execution time.
- the basic set of transformations includes at least code restructuring, function inlining, and hot-cold code motion.
- Code restructuring is an optimization, which places basic blocks close to each other if they are connected by relatively hot edges. For example, basic block A (shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 ) ends with a BNE branch (branch of not equal), following basic block B, for the EQ condition. Under code restructuring, if the edge A-C is much hotter then A-B, the condition that ends A might be changed to EQ (that is, BEQ) so that basic block C will be the fall-through basic block A. Similarly, basic blocks that connect by edges with cold branches may be placed far from each other, sometimes requiring an additional intermediate branch in between if the distance is too great for the original branch to be performed in one hop.
- Hot-cold code motion optimization moves instructions from hot basic block to a colder one, making sure these instructions are properly replicated to preserve the semantics.
- the following algorithm is used to create an invariant linear representation of a function in one embodiment.
- the representation is in a form of a sequence of strips.
- a strip is a possible path through the program CFG, that is, a trace of non-branch instructions that may execute sequentially when the program runs.
- the generated strips of two implementations of a function are compared.
- the comparison can be a textual or character-by-character comparison. Incorrect transformations are identified from the comparison. For example, the strip or strips corresponding to the transformed or optimized code that do not match the strip or strips of the original code are identified as being incorrect.
- the system and method of the present disclosure may be implemented and run on a general-purpose computer or computer system.
- the computer system may be any type of known or will be known systems and may typically include a processor, memory device, a storage device, input/output devices, internal buses, and/or a communications interface for communicating with other computer systems in conjunction with communication hardware and software, etc.
- the terms “computer system” and “computer network” as may be used in the present application may include a variety of combinations of fixed and/or portable computer hardware, software, peripherals, and storage devices.
- the computer system may include a plurality of individual components that are networked or otherwise linked to perform collaboratively, or may include one or more stand-alone components.
- the hardware and software components of the computer system of the present application may include and may be included within fixed and portable devices such as desktop, laptop, and server.
- a module may be a component of a device, software, program, or system that implements some “functionality”, which can be embodied as software, hardware, firmware, electronic circuitry, or etc.
Abstract
A method of validating binary code transformation in one aspect includes analyzing original program and transform program. Control flow graphs are generated for both programs. The two graphs are traversed to create respective linear invariant representations. The linear representations are compared to identify incorrect transformations.
Description
- This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/940,750 filed on Nov. 15, 2007.
- The present disclosure relates to optimizing computer executable codes, and particularly to a method for validating binary code transformation.
- Optimizing executable code is a known technique to improve the performance of code that has already been linked and is ready for execution. It is typically performed using a runtime profile of the code. Different optimization techniques are available such as inlining and code restructuring, which transform the code to functionally equivalent form. If the code optimization does not correctly transform the code to functionally equivalent form, unpredictable consequences may result, such as a program crash.
- While there are existing technologies that perform validations on program source code, semantics of compiler's internal representation of a code, or even hardware level code, those technologies are incapable of handling the kind of transformations performed on the binary applications. Thus, what is desirable is a method that helps to validate the correctness of binary code transformations.
- A method for validating binary code transformations is provided In one aspect, the method may comprise analyzing binary code of an executable program to produce a sequence of basic units; generating control flow graph associated with the sequence of basic units; generating invariant linear function representation based on the control flow graph; analyzing optimized transformation of the executable program to produce a second sequence of basic units; generating second control flow graph associated with the second sequence of basic units; generating second invariant linear function representation based on the second control flow graph; comparing the invariant linear function representation and the second invariant linear function representation; and identifying one or more incorrect transformations in the optimized transformation.
- A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform the above method may also be provided.
- Further features as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the drawings, like reference numbers indicate identical or functionally similar elements.
-
FIG. 1 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for validating binary code transformation in one embodiment of the present disclosure. -
FIG. 2 shows an example sequence of three basic blocks. -
FIG. 3 shows the FCG for the basic blocks inFIG. 2 . - The binary code of the original program and the transformed program are analyzed, using various available techniques such as static techniques using relocation information and/or dynamic techniques by intercepting execution and recognizing the accessed basic units, and a control flow graph for both programs is generated. For each validated function, the two graphs are both traversed in consistent fashion, creating their linear invariant textual representations. These linear representations can be compared as simple text strings in order to identify incorrect transformation.
-
FIG. 1 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for validating binary code transformation in one embodiment of the present disclosure.Steps FIG. 2 shows an example sequence of threebasic blocks - Referring back to
FIG. 1 , at 104, building a program control flow graph (CFG) begins. In one embodiment, building the CFG is done by connecting, with a directed edge, the exit point of each basic block A to the entry points of the basic blocks according to the way A terminates. For instance, if A terminates by a simple branch, connect to the target of the branch. If A terminates by a conditional branch, connect to both the target of the branch, as well as the following basic block (called the fall-through basic block). If A terminates by an indirect branch keep A unconnected at the moment, as the target is not known at this moment.FIG. 3 shows the CFG for the basic blocks inFIG. 2 . - An edge in the CFG carries an execution count, that is, the number of times control passed along that edge when the program was executed. This information can be collected by various means, for example, the “pixie” tool, or the basic block profiling provided by standard compilers like GCC. An edge that carries relatively high execution count is termed hot edge. A basic block that executes many times relative to the average count is termed hot basic block.
- Referring back to
FIG. 1 , at 106, invariant linear function representation is created by consistently traversing the CFC. This step forms an invariant linear representation for a given function. Invariant representation refers to one or more invariants under a set of predefined optimization transformations of the function. An optimization transformation is a transformation of the code that preserves the semantics of the function while providing some potential improvement, typically in execution time. - The basic set of transformations includes at least code restructuring, function inlining, and hot-cold code motion. Code restructuring is an optimization, which places basic blocks close to each other if they are connected by relatively hot edges. For example, basic block A (shown in
FIG. 2 andFIG. 3 ) ends with a BNE branch (branch of not equal), following basic block B, for the EQ condition. Under code restructuring, if the edge A-C is much hotter then A-B, the condition that ends A might be changed to EQ (that is, BEQ) so that basic block C will be the fall-through basic block A. Similarly, basic blocks that connect by edges with cold branches may be placed far from each other, sometimes requiring an additional intermediate branch in between if the distance is too great for the original branch to be performed in one hop. - Function inlining replaces the call instruction by a copy of the fiction in places where the call instruction is very hot. Hot-cold code motion optimization moves instructions from hot basic block to a colder one, making sure these instructions are properly replicated to preserve the semantics.
- The following algorithm is used to create an invariant linear representation of a function in one embodiment. The representation is in a form of a sequence of strips. A strip is a possible path through the program CFG, that is, a trace of non-branch instructions that may execute sequentially when the program runs.
-
Function CreateInvariantRepresentation (ControlFlowGraph cfg Function f) // Control Flow Graph cfgis the CFG of the program // Node f is the entry point of the give Stack returnStack= <empty> // a stack of nodes in cfg Stack entryPointStack = <empty> // a stack of nodes in cfg List stripList = <empty> // the output list of strips. Node epf = EntryPoint(f) Push(epf, entryPointStack) While entryPointStackis not empty do ep = Pop(entryPointStack) If ep has not been traversed then strip = Traverse(ep, returnStack, entryPointStack) Add( strip, stripList) End if End while Return stripList End function Function Traverse (Node entry, InputOutput Stack returnStack, InputOutput Stack entryPointStack ) List Strip = <empty> // output strip (list of instructions) Node bb = entry, firstBB, secondBB While bb is not <empty> do // add basic block to strip Foreach Instruction instr in BasicBlock(bb) do Add(instr, Strip) End foreach Mark bb as traversed // sechedule BBs at edges of bb Bool firstIsCall = (Edge(bb, First) is a call) firstBB = RetrieveNode(Edge(bb, First), returnStack) If firstBB is not <empty> then secondBB = RerieveNode(Edge(bb, Second), returnStack) Else firstBB = RetrieveNode(Edge(bb, Second), returnStack) secondBB = <empty> End if If firstBB is not <empty> then if secondBB is not <empty> then // schedule second node. If this is a call edge, push called function's entry point node on return stack // else push node on entry point stack Stack stack = firstIsCall? returnStack: entryPointStack; Push(secondBB, stack) End if End if bb = firstBB End while // reached a traversed node or end of function Return strips End function Function RetrieveNode(Edge edge, InputOutput Stack returnStack) Node retrievedBB = <empty> If edge exists and is direct then // continue traversing this function retrievedBB = Node(edge) Else if edge is a return instruction (e.g. ‘blr’ in POWER arch.) then // traverse back to caller retrievedBB = Pop(returnStack) End if // do not proceed in this direction if node has been traversed already If retievedBB is not <empty> and retriebedBB is not traversed then Return retrievedBB Else Return <empty> End if End function - An example strip follows. In the example, the branch instructions, which are not part of the strips, are commented out.
-
Strip 6: #13b2b29c ... # 41 86 00 48 beq- cr1,13b2b2e4 <.pevm_EXECC+0x504> #13b2b2e4 ... e8 7d 00 08 ld r3,8(r29) 28 9b 05 7b cmplwi cr1,r27,1403 e8 63 00 c8 ld r3,200(r3) 80 03 00 9c lwz r0,156(r3) 70 00 00 40 andi. r0,r0,64 # 41 82 00 14 beq- 13b2b30c <.pevm_EXECC+0x52c> #13b2b30c ... a0 1c 00 34 lhz r0,52(r28) 70 03 00 40 andi. r3,r0,64 # 40 82 00 34 bne- 13b2b348 <.pevm_EXECC+0x568> 80 bc 00 50 lwz r5,80(r28) e8 dc 00 56 lwa r6,84(r28) e8 7d 00 08 ld r3,8(r29) e8 9d 00 88 ld r4,136(r29) 39 20 00 00 li r9,0 e8 63 00 00 ld r3,0(r3) 38 e0 00 00 li r7,0 39 00 00 00 li r8,0 e8 84 00 00 ld r4,0(r4) # 4b 9f ed 45 bl 1352a080 <.kgicls> 60 00 00 00 nop a0 1c 00 34 lhz r0,52(r28) 54 00 04 3c rlwinm r0,r0,0,16,30 80 7c 00 58 lwz r3,88(r28) 2c 23 00 00 cmpdi r3,0 b0 1c 00 34 sth r0,52(r28) # 41 82 00 0c beq- 13b2b364 <.pevm_EXECC+0x584> #13b2b364 ... 7f a3 eb 78 mr r3,r29 7f 64 db 78 mr r4,r27 # 4b fe 8b b5 bl 13b13f20 <.pevm_handle_external_error> 60 00 00 00 nop # 48 00 01 34 b 13b2b4a8 <.pevm_EXECC+0x6c8> Strip 7: #13b2b35c ... e8 7d 00 b0 ld r3,176(r29) 93 c3 00 98 stw r30,152(r3) Strip 8: #13b2b2fc ... # 40 86 00 10 bne- cr1,13b2b30c <.pevm_EXECC+0x52c> 7f a3 eb 78 mr r3,r29 # 4b fe 9e 9d bl 13b151a0 <.pfrfoe_flush_oci_error> 60 00 00 00 nop - At 108, the generated strips of two implementations of a function are compared. The comparison can be a textual or character-by-character comparison. Incorrect transformations are identified from the comparison. For example, the strip or strips corresponding to the transformed or optimized code that do not match the strip or strips of the original code are identified as being incorrect.
- The system and method of the present disclosure may be implemented and run on a general-purpose computer or computer system. The computer system may be any type of known or will be known systems and may typically include a processor, memory device, a storage device, input/output devices, internal buses, and/or a communications interface for communicating with other computer systems in conjunction with communication hardware and software, etc.
- The terms “computer system” and “computer network” as may be used in the present application may include a variety of combinations of fixed and/or portable computer hardware, software, peripherals, and storage devices. The computer system may include a plurality of individual components that are networked or otherwise linked to perform collaboratively, or may include one or more stand-alone components. The hardware and software components of the computer system of the present application may include and may be included within fixed and portable devices such as desktop, laptop, and server. A module may be a component of a device, software, program, or system that implements some “functionality”, which can be embodied as software, hardware, firmware, electronic circuitry, or etc.
- The embodiments described above are illustrative examples and it should not be construed that the present invention is limited to these particular embodiments. Thus, various changes and modifications may be effected by one skilled in the art without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.
Claims (1)
1. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform a method for validating binary code transformations, comprising:
analyzing binary code of an executable program to produce a sequence of basic units comprising smallest elements of the executable program that stay intact under every reordering;
generating control flow graph associated with the sequence of basic units;
generating invariant linear fiction representation based on the control flow graph;
analyzing optimized transformation of the executable program to produce a second sequence of basic units;
generating second control flow graph associated with the second sequence of basic units;
generating second invariant linear function representation based on the second control flow graph;
comparing the invariant linear function representation and the second invariant linear function representation; and
identifying one or more incorrect transformations in the optimized transformation,
wherein the invariant linear function representation and the second invariant linear function representation are invariants under a set of predefined optimization transformation and include a sequence of strips comprising a path through a trace of non-branch instructions executing sequentially when the executable program runs.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US12/206,578 US20090133005A1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2008-09-08 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/940,750 US7430733B1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2007-11-15 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
US12/206,578 US20090133005A1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2008-09-08 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US11/940,750 Continuation US7430733B1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2007-11-15 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20090133005A1 true US20090133005A1 (en) | 2009-05-21 |
Family
ID=39776574
Family Applications (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US11/940,750 Expired - Fee Related US7430733B1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2007-11-15 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
US12/206,578 Abandoned US20090133005A1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2008-09-08 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
Family Applications Before (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US11/940,750 Expired - Fee Related US7430733B1 (en) | 2007-11-15 | 2007-11-15 | Method for validation of binary code transformations |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US7430733B1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20150143342A1 (en) * | 2013-11-15 | 2015-05-21 | Microsoft Corporation | Functional validation of software |
Families Citing this family (14)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8429623B2 (en) * | 2007-01-16 | 2013-04-23 | Oracle America Inc. | Processing engine for enabling a set of code intended for a first platform to be executed on a second platform |
US8954546B2 (en) | 2013-01-25 | 2015-02-10 | Concurix Corporation | Tracing with a workload distributor |
US20130283281A1 (en) | 2013-02-12 | 2013-10-24 | Concurix Corporation | Deploying Trace Objectives using Cost Analyses |
US8997063B2 (en) | 2013-02-12 | 2015-03-31 | Concurix Corporation | Periodicity optimization in an automated tracing system |
US8924941B2 (en) | 2013-02-12 | 2014-12-30 | Concurix Corporation | Optimization analysis using similar frequencies |
US20130227529A1 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2013-08-29 | Concurix Corporation | Runtime Memory Settings Derived from Trace Data |
US9575874B2 (en) | 2013-04-20 | 2017-02-21 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Error list and bug report analysis for configuring an application tracer |
US9292415B2 (en) | 2013-09-04 | 2016-03-22 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Module specific tracing in a shared module environment |
EP3069241B1 (en) | 2013-11-13 | 2018-08-15 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Application execution path tracing with configurable origin definition |
US10037366B2 (en) | 2014-02-07 | 2018-07-31 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | End to end validation of data transformation accuracy |
US11307962B2 (en) * | 2018-07-09 | 2022-04-19 | United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy | Method for semantic preserving transform mutation discovery and vetting |
US11844738B2 (en) | 2018-08-17 | 2023-12-19 | Troy Bruesewitz | Therapy device for neck and spine |
US11074167B2 (en) * | 2019-03-25 | 2021-07-27 | Aurora Labs Ltd. | Visualization of code execution through line-of-code behavior and relation models |
CN114461198A (en) * | 2021-12-27 | 2022-05-10 | 上海交通大学四川研究院 | Program generation method, device, equipment and medium based on visual low code |
Citations (27)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5371747A (en) * | 1992-06-05 | 1994-12-06 | Convex Computer Corporation | Debugger program which includes correlation of computer program source code with optimized object code |
US5450575A (en) * | 1991-03-07 | 1995-09-12 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Use of stack depth to identify machine code mistakes |
US5758051A (en) * | 1996-07-30 | 1998-05-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for reordering memory operations in a processor |
US5790867A (en) * | 1996-01-02 | 1998-08-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Compiler with extended redundant copy elimination |
US5802373A (en) * | 1996-01-29 | 1998-09-01 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method for providing a pipeline interpreter for a variable length instruction set |
US5889999A (en) * | 1996-05-15 | 1999-03-30 | Motorola, Inc. | Method and apparatus for sequencing computer instruction execution in a data processing system |
US5966541A (en) * | 1997-12-04 | 1999-10-12 | Incert Software Corporation | Test protection, and repair through binary-code augmentation |
US5966539A (en) * | 1994-03-01 | 1999-10-12 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Link time optimization with translation to intermediate program and following optimization techniques including program analysis code motion live variable set generation order analysis, dead code elimination and load invariant analysis |
US6035123A (en) * | 1995-11-08 | 2000-03-07 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Determining hardware complexity of software operations |
US6075942A (en) * | 1998-05-04 | 2000-06-13 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Encoding machine-specific optimization in generic byte code by using local variables as pseudo-registers |
US6226789B1 (en) * | 1996-01-29 | 2001-05-01 | Compaq Computer Corporation | Method and apparatus for data flow analysis |
US6275981B1 (en) * | 1998-11-12 | 2001-08-14 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Method and system for correlating profile data dynamically generated from an optimized executable program with source code statements |
US6289505B1 (en) * | 1997-11-18 | 2001-09-11 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method, apparatus and computer programmed product for binary re-optimization using a high level language compiler |
US6292938B1 (en) * | 1998-12-02 | 2001-09-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Retargeting optimized code by matching tree patterns in directed acyclic graphs |
US6530079B1 (en) * | 1999-06-02 | 2003-03-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for optimizing locks in computer programs |
US6598221B1 (en) * | 2000-04-13 | 2003-07-22 | Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. | Assembly code performance evaluation apparatus and method |
US20040098710A1 (en) * | 2002-11-14 | 2004-05-20 | Jim Radigan | Systems and methods to read, optimize, and verify byte codes for a multiplatform jit |
US6748584B1 (en) * | 1999-12-29 | 2004-06-08 | Veritas Operating Corporation | Method for determining the degree to which changed code has been exercised |
US20040128659A1 (en) * | 2002-12-31 | 2004-07-01 | Intel Corporation | Run-time behavior preserving partial redundancy elimination |
US6829733B2 (en) * | 2001-05-07 | 2004-12-07 | National Instruments Corporation | System and method for graphically detecting differences between test executive sequence files |
US20050257202A1 (en) * | 2004-05-14 | 2005-11-17 | Daniel Kaestner | Data-flow based post pass optimization in dynamic compilers |
US20050268293A1 (en) * | 2004-05-25 | 2005-12-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Compiler optimization |
US20060080645A1 (en) * | 2000-01-14 | 2006-04-13 | Miguel Miranda | System and method for optimizing source code |
US20060130016A1 (en) * | 2003-03-17 | 2006-06-15 | Wagner John R | Method of kernal-mode instruction interception and apparatus therefor |
US20060282807A1 (en) * | 2005-06-03 | 2006-12-14 | Nec Laboratories America, Inc. | Software verification |
US7185328B2 (en) * | 2002-05-30 | 2007-02-27 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for improving a working set |
US7207038B2 (en) * | 2003-08-29 | 2007-04-17 | Nokia Corporation | Constructing control flows graphs of binary executable programs at post-link time |
-
2007
- 2007-11-15 US US11/940,750 patent/US7430733B1/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
2008
- 2008-09-08 US US12/206,578 patent/US20090133005A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (27)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5450575A (en) * | 1991-03-07 | 1995-09-12 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Use of stack depth to identify machine code mistakes |
US5371747A (en) * | 1992-06-05 | 1994-12-06 | Convex Computer Corporation | Debugger program which includes correlation of computer program source code with optimized object code |
US5966539A (en) * | 1994-03-01 | 1999-10-12 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Link time optimization with translation to intermediate program and following optimization techniques including program analysis code motion live variable set generation order analysis, dead code elimination and load invariant analysis |
US6035123A (en) * | 1995-11-08 | 2000-03-07 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Determining hardware complexity of software operations |
US5790867A (en) * | 1996-01-02 | 1998-08-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Compiler with extended redundant copy elimination |
US6226789B1 (en) * | 1996-01-29 | 2001-05-01 | Compaq Computer Corporation | Method and apparatus for data flow analysis |
US5802373A (en) * | 1996-01-29 | 1998-09-01 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method for providing a pipeline interpreter for a variable length instruction set |
US5889999A (en) * | 1996-05-15 | 1999-03-30 | Motorola, Inc. | Method and apparatus for sequencing computer instruction execution in a data processing system |
US5758051A (en) * | 1996-07-30 | 1998-05-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for reordering memory operations in a processor |
US6289505B1 (en) * | 1997-11-18 | 2001-09-11 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method, apparatus and computer programmed product for binary re-optimization using a high level language compiler |
US5966541A (en) * | 1997-12-04 | 1999-10-12 | Incert Software Corporation | Test protection, and repair through binary-code augmentation |
US6075942A (en) * | 1998-05-04 | 2000-06-13 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Encoding machine-specific optimization in generic byte code by using local variables as pseudo-registers |
US6275981B1 (en) * | 1998-11-12 | 2001-08-14 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Method and system for correlating profile data dynamically generated from an optimized executable program with source code statements |
US6292938B1 (en) * | 1998-12-02 | 2001-09-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Retargeting optimized code by matching tree patterns in directed acyclic graphs |
US6530079B1 (en) * | 1999-06-02 | 2003-03-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for optimizing locks in computer programs |
US6748584B1 (en) * | 1999-12-29 | 2004-06-08 | Veritas Operating Corporation | Method for determining the degree to which changed code has been exercised |
US20060080645A1 (en) * | 2000-01-14 | 2006-04-13 | Miguel Miranda | System and method for optimizing source code |
US6598221B1 (en) * | 2000-04-13 | 2003-07-22 | Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. | Assembly code performance evaluation apparatus and method |
US6829733B2 (en) * | 2001-05-07 | 2004-12-07 | National Instruments Corporation | System and method for graphically detecting differences between test executive sequence files |
US7185328B2 (en) * | 2002-05-30 | 2007-02-27 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for improving a working set |
US20040098710A1 (en) * | 2002-11-14 | 2004-05-20 | Jim Radigan | Systems and methods to read, optimize, and verify byte codes for a multiplatform jit |
US20040128659A1 (en) * | 2002-12-31 | 2004-07-01 | Intel Corporation | Run-time behavior preserving partial redundancy elimination |
US20060130016A1 (en) * | 2003-03-17 | 2006-06-15 | Wagner John R | Method of kernal-mode instruction interception and apparatus therefor |
US7207038B2 (en) * | 2003-08-29 | 2007-04-17 | Nokia Corporation | Constructing control flows graphs of binary executable programs at post-link time |
US20050257202A1 (en) * | 2004-05-14 | 2005-11-17 | Daniel Kaestner | Data-flow based post pass optimization in dynamic compilers |
US20050268293A1 (en) * | 2004-05-25 | 2005-12-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Compiler optimization |
US20060282807A1 (en) * | 2005-06-03 | 2006-12-14 | Nec Laboratories America, Inc. | Software verification |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20150143342A1 (en) * | 2013-11-15 | 2015-05-21 | Microsoft Corporation | Functional validation of software |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US7430733B1 (en) | 2008-09-30 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7430733B1 (en) | Method for validation of binary code transformations | |
US9032379B2 (en) | Platform specific optimizations in static compilers | |
Kong et al. | When polyhedral transformations meet SIMD code generation | |
Pop et al. | GRAPHITE: Polyhedral analyses and optimizations for GCC | |
Zhang et al. | Using hammock graphs to structure programs | |
Porpodas et al. | Throttling automatic vectorization: When less is more | |
US8387026B1 (en) | Compile-time feedback-directed optimizations using estimated edge profiles from hardware-event sampling | |
CN110825386B (en) | Code compiling method and device and storage medium | |
US8191057B2 (en) | Systems, methods, and computer products for compiler support for aggressive safe load speculation | |
US20060048122A1 (en) | Method, system and computer program product for hierarchical loop optimization of machine executable code | |
US8037464B2 (en) | Generating optimized SIMD code in the presence of data dependences | |
Ebner et al. | Generalized instruction selection using SSA-graphs | |
Shashidhar et al. | Functional equivalence checking for verification of algebraic transformations on array-intensive source code | |
US9201636B2 (en) | Method for divergence analysis of pointer-based program | |
CN104951290A (en) | Method and equipment for optimizing software | |
Sharma et al. | Sound bit-precise numerical domains | |
Soares et al. | Side-channel elimination via partial control-flow linearization | |
Bertholon et al. | Jshadobf: A javascript obfuscator based on multi-objective optimization algorithms | |
Goss | Machine code optimization-improving executable object code | |
Dragan et al. | LINGVA: Generating and proving program properties using symbol elimination | |
US20140344795A1 (en) | Computer-readable recording medium, compiling method, and information processing apparatus | |
Atre et al. | Dissecting sequential programs for parallelization—An approach based on computational units | |
Chouksey et al. | Translation validation of loop invariant code optimizations involving false computations | |
Porpodas et al. | PostSLP: cross-region vectorization of fully or partially vectorized code | |
Brandner et al. | Criticality: static profiling for real-time programs |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO PAY ISSUE FEE |