ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Type feedback vs. concrete type inference: a comparison of optimization techniques for object-oriented languages
Full text PdfPdf (2.27 MB)
Source Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications archive
Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications table of contents
Austin, Texas, United States
Pages: 91 - 107  
Year of Publication: 1995
ISBN:0-89791-703-0
Also published in ...
Authors
Ole Agesen  Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Urs Hölzle  Computer Science Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA
Sponsor
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 40,   Citation Count: 27
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/217838.217847
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Two promising optimization techniques for object-oriented languages are type feedback (profile-based receiver class prediction) and concrete type inference (static analysis). We directly compare the two techniques, evaluating their effectiveness on a suite of 23 SELF programs while keeping other factors constant.Our results show that both systems inline over 95% of all sends and deliver similar overall performance with one exception: SELF's automatic coercion of machine integers to arbitrary-precision integers upon overflow confounds type inference and slows down arithmetic-intensive benchmarks.We discuss several other issues which, given the comparable run-time performance, may influence the choice between type feedback and type inference.


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.

 
Age94
Ole Agesen. Constraint-Based Type Inference and Parametric Polymorphism. in SAS '94, First International Static Analysis Symposium, p. 78-100, Namur, Belgium, Sept. 1994. Springer-Verlag (LNCS 864).
AU94
 
Age95
 
AH95
 
APS93
 
CGZ94
Brad Calder, Dirk Grunwald, and Benjamin Zorn. Quantifying Behavioral Differences Between C and C++ Programs. Journal of Programming Languages 4(2), Dec. 1994.
CUL89
CU90
 
DGC95
DS84
 
Dyk77
Eric J. Van Dyke. A dynamic incremental compiler for an interpretative language. HP Journal, p. 17-24, July 1977.
Gro95
GW78
 
HCU91
 
Höl94
Urs H61zle. Adaptive Optimization in SELF: Reconciling High Performance with Exploratory Programming. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Aug. 1994. (Available from http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/--urs.)
HU94a
HU94b
JGZ88
Joh79
 
Kra83
 
Mit70
 
OPS92
PS91
 
PR94
Hemant D. Pande and Barbara G. Ryder. Static Type Determination and Aliasing for C++. Technical Report LCSR- TR-236, Rutgers University, Dec. 1994.
PC94a
 
PC94b
John B. Plevyak and Andrew A. Chien. Precise Concrete Type Inference and its Use in Program Optimization. Unpublished report, Oct. 1994.
 
PC94c
john B. Plevyak and Andrew A. Chien. Efficient cloning to eliminate dynamic dispatch in object-oriented languages. Unpublished report, Dec. 1994.
PZC95
Suz81
US87
 
VHU92

CITED BY  27