Description
Loop dependence analysis occur on a normalized loop of the form:
for i1 until U1 do for i2 until U2 do ... for in until Un do body done done
done
where body may contain:
S1 a := ... ...
S2 ... := a
Where a is an m-dimensional array and fn, hn, etc. are functions mapping from all iteration indexes (in) to a memory access in a particular dimension of the array.
For example, in C:
for (i = 0; i < U1; i++) for (j = 0; j < U2; j++) a = b + i*j;f1 would be i+4-j, controlling the write on the first dimension of a and h2 would be 2*i-j, controlling the read on the first dimension of b.
The scope of the problem is to find all possible dependencies between S1 and S2. To be conservative, any dependence which cannot be proven false must be assumed to be true.
Independence is shown by demonstrating that no two instances of S1 and S2 access or modify the same spot in array a. When a possible dependence is found, loop dependence analysis usually makes every attempt to characterize the relationship between dependent instances, as some optimizations may still be possible. It may also be possible to transform the loop to remove or modify the dependence.
In the course of (dis)proving such dependencies, a statement S may be decomposed according to which iteration it comes from. For instance, S refers to the iteration where i1 = 1, i2 = 3 and i3 = 5. Of course, references to abstract iterations, such as S, are both permitted and common.
Read more about this topic: Loop Dependence Analysis
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“It is possible—indeed possible even according to the old conception of logic—to give in advance a description of all ‘true’ logical propositions. Hence there can never be surprises in logic.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951)
“To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of any man of parts and culture.”
—Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)
“The Sage of Toronto ... spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by a “global village” instantly and effortlessly accessible to all. Villages, unlike towns, have always been ruled by conformism, isolation, petty surveillance, boredom and repetitive malicious gossip about the same families. Which is a precise enough description of the global spectacle’s present vulgarity.”
—Guy Debord (b. 1931)