Compositional performance prediction exemplified using generic object finalization analysis

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Compositional performance prediction exemplified using generic object finalization analysis

Full text

Pdf (294 KB)

Source

ACM Southeast Regional Conference archive
Proceedings of the 47th Annual Southeast Regional Conference table of contents

Clemson, South Carolina

SESSION: Software engineering I table of contents

Article No. 13

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-421-8

Authors

Nighat Yasmin	University of Mississippi, University, MS
Murali Sitaraman	Clemson University, Clemson, SC

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 6, Downloads (12 Months): 13, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1566445.1566464 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Static analysis methods for performance prediction of component-based software must be compositional in order to be scalable. In this paper, we explain the problem and our solution approach by analyzing the time to finalize or destroy generic objects, in the presence of data abstraction. Unlike initialization of objects to pre-specified values, finalization has to contend with objects with arbitrary values. In the process, we explain necessary trade-offs between precision and complexity and the need to strengthen specifications of operations and internal assertions, such as loop invariants for performance analysis.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Antonia Bertolino , Raffaela Mirandola, Software performance engineering of component-based systems, Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Software and performance, January 14-16, 2004, Redwood Shores, California
	2	Daniel L. Dvorak , William K. Reinholtz, Hard real-time: C++ versus RTSJ, Companion to the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, October 24-28, 2004, Vancouver, BC, CANADA [doi>10.1145/1028664.1028770]
	3	Hoare, T., Misra, J., and Shankar, N. 2005. The IFIP working conference on verified software: Theories, tools, experiments. (October 2005). http://tinyurl.com/nrhdl.
	4	Joan Krone , William F. Ogden , Murali Sitaraman, Performance analysis based upon complete profiles, Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Specification and verification of component-based systems, November 10-11, 2006, Portland, Oregon [doi>10.1145/1181195.1181197]
	5	Ryan, H. W. 2000. Information Technology: Too Big to Fail? Outlook Journal. (January 2000). http://www.accenture.com/Global/Research_and_Insights/Outlook/By_Alphabet/InformationFail.htm
	6	Marulli Sitariman , Bruce Weide, Component-based software using RESOLVE, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.19 n.4, p.21-22, Oct. 1994 [doi>10.1145/190679.199221]
	7	Performance solutions: a practical guide to creating responsive, scalable software, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 2002
	8	Douglas P. Konkin , Gregory M. Oster , Richard B. Bunt, Exploiting software interfaces for performance measurement, Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Software and performance, p.208-218, October 12-16, 1998, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States [doi>10.1145/287318.287364]
	9	Xiuping Wu , Murray Woodside, Performance modeling from software components, Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Software and performance, January 14-16, 2004, Redwood Shores, California