Optimizing compilation with preservation of structural code coverage metrics to support software testing

Code-coverage-based testing is a widely-used testing strategy with the aim of providing a meaningful decision criterion for the adequacy of a test suite. Code-coverage-based testing is also mandated for the development of safety-critical applications; for example, the DO178b document requires the application of the modified condition/decision coverage. One critical issue of code-coverage testing is that structural code coverage criteria are typically applied to source code whereas the generated machine code may result in a different code structure because of code optimizations performed by a compiler. In this work, we present the automatic calculation of coverage profiles describing which structural code-coverage criteria are preserved by which code optimization, independently of the concrete test suite. These coverage profiles allow to easily extend compilers with the feature of preserving any given code-coverage criteria by enabling only those code optimizations that preserve it. Furthermore, we describe the integration of these coverage profile into the compiler GCC. With these coverage profiles, we answer the question of how much code optimization is possible without compromising the error-detection likelihood of a given test suite. Experimental results conclude that the performance cost to achieve preservation of structural code coverage in GCC is rather low.Peer reviewedSubmitted Versio

Lost in translation: Exposing hidden compiler optimization opportunities

Existing iterative compilation and machine-learning-based optimization techniques have been proven very successful in achieving better optimizations than the standard optimization levels of a compiler. However, they were not engineered to support the tuning of a compiler's optimizer as part of the compiler's daily development cycle. In this paper, we first establish the required properties which a technique must exhibit to enable such tuning. We then introduce an enhancement to the classic nightly routine testing of compilers which exhibits all the required properties, and thus, is capable of driving the improvement and tuning of the compiler's common optimizer. This is achieved by leveraging resource usage and compilation information collected while systematically exploiting prefixes of the transformations applied at standard optimization levels. Experimental evaluation using the LLVM v6.0.1 compiler demonstrated that the new approach was able to reveal hidden cross-architecture and architecture-dependent potential optimizations on two popular processors: the Intel i5-6300U and the Arm Cortex-A53-based Broadcom BCM2837 used in the Raspberry Pi 3B+. As a case study, we demonstrate how the insights from our approach enabled us to identify and remove a significant shortcoming of the CFG simplification pass of the LLVM v6.0.1 compiler.Comment: 31 pages, 7 figures, 2 table. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1802.0984

Less is More: Exploiting the Standard Compiler Optimization Levels for Better Performance and Energy Consumption

This paper presents the interesting observation that by performing fewer of the optimizations available in a standard compiler optimization level such as -O2, while preserving their original ordering, significant savings can be achieved in both execution time and energy consumption. This observation has been validated on two embedded processors, namely the ARM Cortex-M0 and the ARM Cortex-M3, using two different versions of the LLVM compilation framework; v3.8 and v5.0. Experimental evaluation with 71 embedded benchmarks demonstrated performance gains for at least half of the benchmarks for both processors. An average execution time reduction of 2.4% and 5.3% was achieved across all the benchmarks for the Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M3 processors, respectively, with execution time improvements ranging from 1% up to 90% over the -O2. The savings that can be achieved are in the same range as what can be achieved by the state-of-the-art compilation approaches that use iterative compilation or machine learning to select flags or to determine phase orderings that result in more efficient code. In contrast to these time consuming and expensive to apply techniques, our approach only needs to test a limited number of optimization configurations, less than 64, to obtain similar or even better savings. Furthermore, our approach can support multi-criteria optimization as it targets execution time, energy consumption and code size at the same time.Comment: 15 pages, 3 figures, 71 benchmarks used for evaluatio

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018