MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240240657 · doi:10.1109/pact.1996.552551

Compiling C for the EARTH multithreaded architecture

2002· article· en· W4240240657 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie Hendren, Xinan Tang, Yingchun Zhu, Guang R. Gao, Xun Xue, Haiying Cai, P. Ouellet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerMultithreadingLocalityParallel computingProgrammerInstruction-level parallelismProgramming languageSimple (philosophy)Parallelism (grammar)Benchmark (surveying)Computer architectureOperating systemThread (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multithreaded architectures provide an opportunity for efficiently executing programs with irregular parallelism and/or irregular locality. This paper presents a strategy that makes use of the multithreaded execution model without exposing multithreading to the programmer. Our approach is to design simple extensions to C, and to provide compiler support that automatically translates high-level C programs into lower-level threaded programs. In this paper we introduce EARTH-C, our extended C language which contains simple constructs for specifying control parallelism and data locality. Based on EARTH-C, we describe compiler techniques that are used for translating to lower-level Threaded-C programs for the EARTH multithreaded architecture. We demonstrate our approach with six benchmark programs. We show that even naive EARTH-C programs can lead to reasonable performance, and that more advanced EARTH-C programs can give performance very close to hand-coded threaded-C programs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207