MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148567424 · doi:10.1145/513918.514004

Retargetable binary utilities

2002· article· en· W2148567424 on OpenAlexaff
Maghsoud Abbaspour, Jianwen Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSoftwareDownstream (manufacturing)Interface (matter)De factoArchitectureSet (abstract data type)Programming languageSoftware architectureSimple (philosophy)Operating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since software is playing an increasingly important role in system-on-chip, retargetable compilation has been an active research area in the last few years. However, the retargetting of equally important downstream system tools, such as assemblers, linkers and debuggers, has either been ignored, or falls short of meeting the requirements of modern programming languages and operating systems. In this paper, we present techniques that can automatically retarget the GNU binutils tool kit, which contains a large array of production-quality downstream tools. Other than having all the advantages enjoyed by open-source software by aligning to a de facto standard, our techniques are systematic, as a result of using a formal model of instruction set architecture (ISA) and application binary interface (ABI); and simple, as a result of leveraging free software to the largest extent.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings - ACM IEEE Design Automation ConferenceSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207