Please read the abstract in the section 00front of this documentDissertation (MSc (Computer Science))--University of Pretoria, 2003.Computer Scienceunrestricte

Ngassam, Ernest Ketcha

Dissertation (MSc (Computer Science))--University of Pretoria, 2003.Please read the abstract in the section 00front of this documentComputer Scienceunrestricte

UPSpace at the University of Pretoria

Hardcoding Finite Automata By ERNEST KETCHA NGASSANI Supervisors: Bruce W. Watson and Derrick G . Kourie Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MAGISTER SCIENTIA (Computer Science) in the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology University of Pretoria NOVEMBER 2003                                                   © University of Pretoria To Maurice fj Madeleine N gassam i late Pierre Tatchou Tchoukwam i late Pauline Tchetgnia i fj late Jean Petji. ii    Abstract The so-called conventional approach to implement finite automata is by mean of a matrix to represent the transition function. Of course, if the transition table is very sparse, linked lists might be used as an alternative. Such approaches therefore depend on the computer's main memory capabilities to optimally hold the table for better processing. For various computational problems using finite automata as a basic solution-model, the processing may be an important factor to be considered. This work aims to investigate a relatively new implementation approach that relies on hardcoding. A hardcoded algorithm uses simple instructions to represent the transition table. T he algorithm is written in such a way that the transition matrix is part of its instructions as opposed to the traditional table-driven approach in which the table is external data that is to be accessed by the algorithm. This work includes a general performance analysis of both approaches through an empirical study. We firstly investigate the processing speed required to accept or reject a symbol by some randomly generated single states of some automata. Then, a more advanced experiment is performed based on the previous, for the test of acceptance of randomly generated strings by randomly generated finite automata. The main result of this work is that the hardcoded implementations of finite automata outperform the table-driven implementation up to some threshold. T his therefore empha­sizes that many applications using finite automata as basic model may be optimized by replacing the table-driven implementation with a hardcoded implementation, resulting to better performances. Keywords: Hardcoding, Automata, Pattern matching, Lexical analyzer, Algorithms, Experimentation, Performance, Grammars, Language, Parsing III    Acknowledgements I would like to thank Derrick G. Kourie and Bruce W. Watson, my supervisors, for their constant supports and unterminated suggestions during this research. All my gratitude to Professor Bruce Watson for providing me the idea leading to the achievement of this work . Many thanks to Professor Derrick Kourie for its constant proof reading and critics throughout this research. Of course , I am gratefu l to my parents, Maurice and Madeleine Ngassam, for their patience and love. Without them this work would never have come into existence. My thanks go also to my daughter Orline Ketcha, my son Ryan Ketcha, and my wife Liliane Ketcha who provided me with all the moral support needed to achieve such a work. Finally, I wish to thank the following: Lisette Ngassam, Guy Ngassam, Laurent Ngassam, j\,!Iirabelle Ngassam, Orline Ngassam and Floriant Ngassam for their con­stant support and love through the path of achieving this goal. Pretoria Ernest Ketcha Ngassam October 31, 2003 IV    Table of Contents Abstract III Acknowledgements IV Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Problem 1 1.2 FAs in Context ...... . 3 1.3 Objective of the dissertation 4 1.4 Nlethodology .... 4 1.5 Dissertation Outline .... 5 2 Background and Related Work 7 2.1 Introduction ... . ... ... 7 2.2 Finite Automata ............... . 8 2.2.1 Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA) 9 2.2.2 Complexity of DFA String Recognition. 10 2.2 .3 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata (NFA) 11 2.2.4 Equivalence DFA and N FA . ...... . 12 2.3 Finite Automata and Regular Expressions ... . 13 2.3 .1 Operands and Operators of a Regular Expression 13 2.3.2 Equivalence of Finite Automata and Regular Expressions 14 2.3.3 Summary of the Section ...... . 15 2.4 Pattern Matching .............. . 15 2.4.1 General Pattern Matching Algorithm 15 v    2.4.2 String Keyword Pattern Matching and Finite Automata 16 243 Summary of the section 17 2.5 Lexical Analysis. . . . . . . . . 17 2.5.1 Summary of the section 18 2.6 Context Free Grammars . . . . 18 2.6.1 Definition . . . . . . . . 19 2.6.2 Context Free Grammars and Regular expressions 20 2.6.3 Push Down Automata . . . . 20 2.6.4 Parsing and Code Generation 23 2.7 Related Work . . . . . . . . . 29 2.7.1 Pennello........... . 29 2.7.2 Horspool and Whitney . . . . 33 2.7.3 Bhamidiapaty and Proebsting 35 2.8 Summary of the chapter . . . . . . . 36 3 Problem Domain Restriction 38 3.1 Introduction . ..... 38 3.2 The Table-Driven Algorithm 39 33 The Hardcoded Algorithm . 40 3.4 Comparison of Hardcoding and Table-Driven Algorithms 42 3.5 Problem Restriction. . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.6 Single Symbol Recognition . . . . . . . 46 3.7 Hardcoding Single Symbol Recognition 48 3.8 Summary ................ 49 4 Tools and Methodology 50 41 Introduction. ... .. 50 4.2 Hardware Considerations. 50 4.3 Software Considerations . 51 4.4 The Intel Pentium Read Time Stamp Counter Instruction 52 4.5 Random Number Generation. 52 4.6 Methodology 54 4.7 Chapter Summary 55 5 Implementation 57 5.1 Introduction .......... . 57 5.2 The Random Transition Array. 57 5.3 Table-Driven Implementation . 59 5.4 Hardcoded Implementations .. 61 5.4.1 Use of the Nested Conditional Statements 66 5.4.2 Use of the Switch Statements ...... . 67 VI    5.4.3 Use of a Jump Table . 69 5.4.4 Use of a Linear Search 72 5.4.5 Use of a Direct Jump. 74 5.5 Data Collection ..... 76 5.6 summary of the chapter 78 6 Experimental Results 79 6.1 Introduction: ........... . 79 6.2 Table-Driven Experimental Results 79 6.3 Hardcoding Experimental Results . 80 6.3.1 High-Level Language Hardcoding 81 6.3.2 Low-Level Language Hardcoding 83 6.3.3 Overall Results of Hardcoding 87 6.4 Final Results ..... . 88 6.5 Summary of the chapter .... 89 7 String Recognition Experiments 94 7.1 Introduction: ................... . 94 7.2 Exercising Nlemory on Intel Pentium Architecture 95 7.2.1 A Simple Experiment and Results. 97 7.3 The String Recognition Experiment 104 7.3.1 Experimental Results. 107 7.4 Summary of the Chapter . 111 8 Summary and Future Work 113 8.1 Summary and Conclusion 113 8.2 Future V/ork ....... . 118 A Random Number Generator 120 B Data Collected 126 Bibliography 137 V11    List of Tables 3.1 Evaluation of algorithm 3 and 4 . . 	 43 B.1 The Table-driven Experiment Data 	 128 B.2 The Switch Statements Data .... 	 129 B.3 the Nested Conditional Statements Data 	 130 B.4 The Jump Table Data . 	 131 B.5 The Linear Search Data 	 132 B.6 The Direct Jump Data . 	 133 B.7 	 Averaged Data collected independently to the problem size 134 B.8 	 Sample Data for the two-alphabet symbols Experiments .. 135 B.9 	 Sample Data for the String Recognition Experiment with Searching and JJuect Indexmg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1;)0 Vlll    List of Figures 2.1 A finite automaton .... 	 9 2.2 A state transition diagram 	 9 2.3 A Push Down Automa.ton 	 21 3.1 	 A state in the transition diagram of some finite automaton 47 3.2 	 A transition array for a state of some automaton 47 4.1 	 Process diagram indicating how the hardcoded implementation were compared to the table-driven implementation 56 6.1 	 A verage processing speed for Table-driven implementation (accepting and rejecting symbols) .......... 80 6.2 	 Accepting symbol performance for NCSs 82 6.3 	 Rejecting symbol performance for NCSs 83 6.4 	 Performance based on ASs for SSs 84 6.5 	 Performance based on RSs for SSs 85 6.6 	 Performance based on hardcoding implementation in high-level language 86 6.7 	 Performance based on ASs for JT . 87 6.8 	 Performance based on RSs for JT . 88 6.9 	 Performance based on ASs for LS 89 6.10 	 Performance based on RSs for LS 90 6.11 	 Performance ba.sed on ASs for DJ . 91 6. 12 	Performance based on RSs for DJ . 91 IX    6.13 Performance of low-level hardcoded implementations 92 6.14 Performance based on hardcoding implementation .. 92 6.15 Average processing speed per implementation technique. 93 7.1 Bardcoded time against automaton size for two symbols alphabet 101 7.2 Table-driven time against automaton size for two symbols alphabet 104 7.3 table-driven and hardcoded multiple states for two symbols alphabet 105 7.4 Table-driven and hardcoded performance using linear search 108 7.5 Table-driven and hardcoded performance using direct index. 110 7.6 Table-driven and hardcoded performance using direct index. 110 7.7 Performance based on searching and direct indexing . . . . . 111 x    

Hardcoding finite automata

https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/2263/25486/1/00front.pdf

Hardcoding finite automata

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UPSpace at the University of Pretoria