Re: Banerjee inequality

jle@ural.owlnet.rice.edu (Jason Lee Eckhardt)
Mon, 5 Nov 2007 13:59:07 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-02)
Re: Banerjee inequality rcmetzger@grandecom.net (rcmetzger) (2007-11-04)
Re: Banerjee inequality jle@ural.owlnet.rice.edu (2007-11-05)
Re: Banerjee inequality gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-11-05)
Re: Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-06)
Re: Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: jle@ural.owlnet.rice.edu (Jason Lee Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 13:59:07 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
References: 07-11-006
Keywords: analysis
Posted-Date: 06 Nov 2007 10:39:43 EST

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?= <pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi> wrote:
>I am trying to wrap my head around the Banerjee inequality (a basis
>for a particular form of dependence testing in loops). While I
>understand the gross outline, I am trying to work out the details to
>convince myself. However, the proofs in Allen and Kennedy's Optimizing
>Compilers for Modern Architectures are given in such high level that I
>am having a hard time filling in some of the gaps.
>
>Does anyone know of sources where the proofs would be spelled
>out in more detail?


    See:
      Zima and Chapman, "Supercompilers for Parallel and Vector Computers", 1991.
      Chapter 4 and Appendix B.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.