ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Optimal spilling for CISC machines with few registers
Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2001 conference on Programming language design and implementation
Register allocation & spilling via graph coloring
SIGPLAN '82 Proceedings of the 1982 SIGPLAN symposium on Compiler construction
Optimistic register coalescing
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
On the Complexity of Register Coalescing
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization
Copy coalescing by graph recoloring
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation
A fast cutting-plane algorithm for optimal coalescing
CC'07 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Compiler construction
Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Software & Compilers for Embedded Systems
Preference-Guided register assignment
CC'10/ETAPS'10 Proceedings of the 19th joint European conference on Theory and Practice of Software, international conference on Compiler Construction
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Register allocation recently regained much interest due to new decoupled strategies that split the problem into separate phases: spilling, register assignment, and copy elimination. A common assumption of existing copy elimination approaches is that the original ordering of the instructions in the program is not changed. This work presents an extension of a local recoloring technique called Parallel Copy Motion. We perform code motion on data dependence graphs in order to eliminate useless copies and reorder instructions, while at the same time a valid register assignment is preserved. Our results show that even after traditional register allocation with coalescing our technique is able to eliminate an additional 3% (up to 9%) of the remaining copies and reduce the weighted costs of register copies by up to 25% for the SPECINT 2000 benchmarks. In comparison to Parallel Copy Motion, our technique removes 11% (up to 20%) more copies and up to 39% more of the copy costs.