Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

When a single software module in a large system is modified, a potentially large number of other modules may have to be recompiled. By reducing both the number of compilations and the amount of input processed by each compilation run, the turnaround time after changes can be reduced significantly. Potential time savings are measured in a medium-sized, industrial software project over a three-year period. The results indicate that a large number of compilations caused by traditional compilation unit dependencies may be redundant. On the available data, a mechanism that compares compiler output saves about 25 percent, smart recompilation saves 50 percent, and smartest recompilation may save up to 80 percent of compilation work. Furthermore, all compilation methods other than smartest recompilation process large amounts of unused environment data. In the project analyzed, the average environment symbols are actually used. Reading only the actually used symbols would reduce total compiler input by about 50 percent. Combining smart recompilation with a reduction in environment processing might double to triple perceived compilation speed and double linker speed, without sacrificing static type safety.

REFERENCES

• 1: Rolf Adams , Annette Weinert , Walter F. Tichy, Software Change Dynamics or Half of all Ada Compilations are Redundant, Proceedings of the 2nd European Software Engineering Conference, p.203-221, September 11-15, 1989
• 2: BOO,SON, E. 1989. Program changes and the cost of selective recompilation. Ph.D. thesis, Lept. of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., July.
• 3: Michael Burke , Linda Torczon, Interprocedural optimization: eliminating unnecessary recompilation, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.15 n.3, p.367-399, July 1993 [doi>10.1145/169683.169678]
• 4: P. M. Cashin , M. L. Joliat , R. F. Kamel , D. M. Lasker, Experience with a modular typed language: PROTEL, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.136-143, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States
• 5: CCITT 1988. CCITT high level language (CHILL) language definition, 1988. CCITT Recomm. Z.200, ITU, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 6: CONRADI, R., AND W~VIK, D. H., 1985. Mechanisms and tools for separate compilation. Tech. Rep. 25/85, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Univ. of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway.
• 7: DAUSMANN, M. 1985. Informationsstrukturen und Verfahren ffdr die getrennte Ubersetzung von Programmteilen. GMD-Bericht 155, R. Oldenburg Verlag, Munich, Germany.
• 8: H. Eidnes , D. O. Hallsteinsen , D. H. Wanvik, Separate compilation in CHIPSY, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.14 n.7, p.42-45, Nov. 1989
• 9: FEILER, P. H., DART, S. A., AND DOWNEY, G. 1988. Evaluation of the Rational environment. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-88-TR-15, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa.
• 10: FELDIVL~N, S. I. 1979. Make--A program for maintaining computer programs. Softw. Pract. Exper. 9, 3 (Mar.), 255 265.
• 11: David G. Foster, Separate compilation in a Modula-2 compiler, Software—Practice & Experience, v.16 n.2, p.101-106, Feb. 1986 [doi>10.1002/spe.4380160202]
• 12: GUTKNECHT, J. 1986. Separate compilation in Modu{a-2: An approach to efficient symbol files. IEEE Softw. 3, 6 (Nov.), 29 38.
• 13: KAMEL, R. F. 1987. Effect of modularity on system evolution. IEEE Softw. 4, i (Jan.), 48-54.
• 14: LEBLANG, D. B., AND CHASE, R. P., JR. 1987. Parallel software configuration management in a network environment. IEEE Softw. 4~ 6 (Nov.), 28-35.
• 15: M. M. Lehman , L. A. Belady, Program evolution: processes of software change, Academic Press Professional, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1985
• 16: Michael R. Levy, Type checking, separate compilation and reusability, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.19 n.6, p.285-289, June 1984
• 17: M. A. Linton , R. W. Quong, A Macroscopic Profile of Program Compilation and Linking, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.15 n.4, p.427-436, April 1989 [doi>10.1109/32.16603]
• 18: MITCHELL, J. G., MAYBURY, W. AND SWEET, R. 1978. Mesa language manual. Tech. Rep., Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif., Feb.
• 19: R. A. Olsson , G. R. Whitehead, A simple technique for automatic recompilation in modular programming languages, Software—Practice & Experience, v.19 n.8, p.757-773, August 1989 [doi>10.1002/spe.4380190805]
• 20: RAIN, M. 1984. Avoiding trickle-down recompilation in the Mary2 implementation. Softw Pract. Exper. 14, 12 (Dec.), 1149-1157.
• 21: Graham Ross, Integral-C—a practical environment for C programming, Proceedings of the second ACM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN software engineering symposium on Practical software development environments, p.42-48, December 09-11, 1986, Palo Alto, California, United States
• 22: Robert W. Schwanke , Gail E. Kaiser, Smarter recompilation, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.10 n.4, p.627-632, Oct. 1988 [doi>10.1145/48022.214505]
• 23: R. W. Schwanke , E. S. Cohen , R. Gluecker , W. M. Hasling , D. A. Soni , M. E. Wagner, Configuration management in BiiN SMS, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, p.383-393, May 1989, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/74587.74640]
• 24: Zhong Shao , Andrew W. Appel, Smartest recompilation, Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.439-450, March 1993, Charleston, South Carolina, United States [doi>10.1145/158511.158702]
• 25: Walter F. Tichy, Software development control based on module interconnection, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Software engineering, p.29-41, September 17-19, 1979, Munich, Germany
• 26: Walter F. Tichy, RCS—a system for version control, Software—Practice & Experience, v.15 n.7, p.637-654, July 1985 [doi>10.1002/spe.4380150703]
• 27: Walter F. Tichy, Smart recompilation, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.8 n.3, p.273-291, July 1986 [doi>10.1145/5956.5959]
• 28: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 1983 Reference manual for the Ada programming language. ANSI/MIL-STD 1815 A-1983, 2, U.S. Dept. of Defense, Washington, D C.
• 29: Vo, K.-P., AND CHEN, Y.-F. 1992. Inch A tool to analyze include files. In Summer 1992 USENIX Conference (San Antonio, Tex., June), pp. 199-208.
• 30: WroTH, N. 1985. Programmtng in Modula-2. Springer-Verlag, New York.
• 31: WIRTH, N, GEISSMANN, L., HOPPE, J., JACOBI, C., KNUDSEN, S. E., AND WINIGER, W. 1982. Lilith handbook: A grade for Lilith users and programmers Tech. Rep, Institut fir Informatik der ETH Ziirich, Switzerland.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.4 Processors
          Subjects: Compilers

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software configuration management
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

General Terms:
Languages, Measurement

Keywords:
empirical analysis, environment processing, selective recompilation, separate compilation, smart recompilation, software evolution