Register allocation and spilling using the expected distance heuristic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The primary goal of the register allocation phase in a compiler is to minimize register spills to memory. Spill decisions by the allocator are often made based on the costs of spilling a virtual register and, therefore, on an assumed placement of spill instructions. However, because most allocators make these decisions incrementally, placement opportunities can change as allocation proceeds, calling into question the basis for the original spill decision. An alternative heuristic to placement costs for spill decisions focuses on where program execution will lead. Spilling the virtual register with the Furthest Next Use is known to lead to the minimum number of loads under certain conditions in straight‐line code. While it has been implemented in register allocation in different forms, none of these implementations fully exploits profiling information. We present a register allocator that can adapt to improved profiling information, using branch probabilities to compute an Expected Distance to Next Use for making spill decisions and block frequency information to optimize post‐allocation spill instruction placement. Spill placement is optimized after allocation using a novel method for minimizing spill instruction costs on the control flow graph. Our evaluation of the allocator compared with LLVM recognizes more than 36% and 50% reductions, on average, in the number of dynamically executed store and load instructions, respectively, when using statically derived profiling information. When using dynamically gathered profiling, these improvements increase to 50% and 60% reductions, on average, for stores and loads, respectively. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".