Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Optimizations for Faster Simulation of Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU Advisers: Gérard Berry – Esterel Technologies Robert de Simone – INRIA,

Published byDiego Dandy Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Optimizations for Faster Simulation of Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU Advisers: Gérard Berry – Esterel Technologies Robert de Simone – INRIA,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Optimizations for Faster Simulation of Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU Advisers: Gérard Berry – Esterel Technologies Robert de Simone – INRIA, project TICK PhD Thesis Defense, 26 November 2002, Agelonde, France

2 Part 1: Why? –Background –Motivation Part 2: How? –Presentation of the work –Results and conclusion

3 Two compilation trends 1.Semantic completeness Formal semantics (Esterel v5) Formal models (automata, circuits) Formal analysis and optimization methods Efficiency issues (do not scale up well) 2.Efficient simulation Custom intermediate formats Scale up well Semantic issues

4 Structural imperative style Why? Because of Esterel properties loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R if(BOOT){A_active=1;B_active=1;} else { if(R){A_active=1;B_active=1;} else if(A_active|B_active) { if(A_active) if(A) {A_active=0;B=1;} if(B_active) if(B) B_active=0; if(!(A_active|B_active)) O=1; } –Esterel source = control-flow specification well-structured code control-flow optimizations –But…

5 Why? Because of Esterel properties Constructive causality –Correct causality cycles –Instantaneous reaction to signal absence (analysis of not yet executed code) –Solution: Translate into a formal mathematical model –But: Loss of efficiency signal S,T in emit S; present T then present S else emit T end end; end causality cycle break the cycle

6 Explicit FSMCircuits Very large, Very fast Small Slow Bisimulation (fc2tools) RTL optimizations (SIS) Expensive, slow General Cheap, fast General* Efficient code Very small Very fast Classical control-flow optimizations Cheap, fast Only “acyclic” programs *=sccausal or slow simulation Semantically complete Generated code (without optim.) Optimization Problems Compiling method Do not scale up well Semantics (acyclic=?) Less powerful optim. Current methods ? Intermediate model

7 What we want Generate efficient code for “good” programs Generate code for all programs Understand cyclicity at a higher level Inexpensive optimizations based on static analysis Formalize the efficient approach –New intermediate format/model (GRC) Hierarchical state representation Control-flow graph No specific encoding Means

8 Part II - Outline The GRC format –Definition (small example) –Code generation for “acyclic” GRC specifications State encoding Scheduling Static analysis for optimizations Cyclic specifications –What “cyclic” means? Implementation and benchmarks Conclusion

9 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 4 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] 5 B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] [6] K1 emit O # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R GRC format – a small example emit B

10 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 GRC format – a small example selection tree = parallel/exclusive abstraction of the syntax tree The nodes represent the activation of various statements

11 » loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 Initial state GRC format – a small example

12 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 After the first reaction – waiting for A and B GRC format – a small example

13 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 B has been received. Waiting for A GRC format – a small example

14 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 A has been received. Halted GRC format – a small example

15 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 Program reset after R has been received GRC format – a small example

16 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 4 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] 5 B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] [6] K1 emit O # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R emit B GRC format – a small example

17 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

18 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

19 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

20 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

21 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

22 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

23 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

24 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

25 [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 R exit 2 4 A exit 4 5 B exit 5 [6] # || 0 1 2 boot: await A await B halt loop-every # 3 4 5 6 loop [ await A;emit B || await B ]; emit O; halt every R R absent, A present enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O emit B GRC format – a small example

26 Code generation – acyclic case “Good programs” => acyclic GRC flowgraphs Code generation for acyclic specifications –State encoding Software-specific Bitwise Hierarchic –Static scheduling Respects the causality

27 – boot instant – « await A » active, « await B » completed – « await A » active, « await B » active – « halt » active – program terminated # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 10XXX 11010 11011 111XX 0XXXX 0 1 0 1 State encoding Bit index: States: halt Code generation – acyclic case

28 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt [2] [3] 0 [1] enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 2 enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 4 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] 5 B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] [6] K1 emit O 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

29 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 4 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] 5 B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

30 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt enter 5 enter 4 enter 3enter 2exit 1 enter 6 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

31 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt S[4]=1 S[3]=1 S[2]=0S[1]=1exit 1 S[2]=1 exit 3 K0 Inactive[4] R exit 2 A exit 4 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B exit 5 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

32 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt S[4]=1 S[3]=1 S[2]=0S[1]=1 S[2]=1 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

33 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt S[4]=1 S[3]=1 S[2]=0S[1]=1 S[2]=1 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

34 # || boot: # await A await B loop-every 01234 0 1 0 1 State encoding halt K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code generation – acyclic case emit B

35 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B if(S[1]){ } else { }

36 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B if(S[1]){ if(R){ } else { } } else { }

37 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { } } else {aux=1;} if(aux){ }

38 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { } } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;}

39 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { if(!S[2]){ }} } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;}

40 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { if(!S[2]){ if(S[3])if(A){S[3]=0;B=1;} }} } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;}

41 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling Code generation – acyclic case emit B bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { if(!S[2]){ if(S[3])if(A){S[3]=0;B=1;} if(S[4])if(B)S[4]=0; }} } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;}

42 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { if(!S[2]){ if(S[3])if(A){S[3]=0;B=1;} if(S[4])if(B)S[4]=0; if(S[3]=0&S[4]=0){ } }} } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;} Code generation – acyclic case emit B

43 K0 Inactive[4] R A S[3]=0 K0[4] K1[4] Inactive[5] B S[4]=0 K0[5] K1[5] K1 emit O S[1] S[2] S[3] S[4] S[1..4]=1011 S[2]=1 Static scheduling bool aux=0; if(S[1]){ if(R){aux=1;} else { if(!S[2]){ if(S[3])if(A){S[3]=0;B=1;} if(S[4])if(B)S[4]=0; if(S[3]=0&S[4]=0){ O=1;S[2]=1; } }} } else {aux=1;} if(aux){S[1..4]=1011;} Code generation – acyclic case emit B

44 Static analysis and optimizations GRC specifications => usually very redundant Optimizations Compatible with the code generation scheme –GRC code optimizations –Software encoding optimizations Semantic-preserving Fast, efficient How? Static analysis Fast, efficient Prepare the optimizations and the encoding Not software-specific

45 Static analysis, example trap T in sustain A || await B;await C;exit T end || sustain A await B # await C # boot: nt: Static analysis and optimizations Utility: –Simplify the state access/update protocol –Simplify the state encoding Same status at all instants

46 Optimized state encoding trap T in sustain A || await B;await C;exit T end || sustain A await B # await C # boot: – boot instant – « sustain A »,« await B » active – « sustain A »,« await C » active – program terminated 01234 10XXX 11110 11111 0XXXX 0 1 1 Unoptimized encoding: States: 0 Static analysis and optimizations

47 Optimized state encoding trap T in sustain A || await B;await C;exit T end || sustain A await B # await C # boot: – boot instant – « sustain A »,« await B » active – « sustain A »,« await C » active – program terminated 012 10X 110 111 0XX 0 1 1 Optimized encoding: States: 0 nt: Static analysis and optimizations

48 Dependency removal (propagation of exclusions) [2] 0 [1] enter 3enter 2exit 1 exit 3 S exit 4 enter 4 exit 2exit 0 [4] 2 [3] pause; present S then emit T end; pause; emit S; # # 0 1 2 3 4 boot: emit S emit T Static analysis and optimizations

49 Dependency removal (propagation of exclusions) [2] 0 [1] enter 3enter 2exit 1 exit 3 S exit 4 enter 4 exit 2exit 0 [4] 2 [3] pause; present S then emit T end; pause; emit S; # # 0 1 2 3 4 boot: emit S emit T Static analysis and optimizations

50 Dependency removal (propagation of exclusions) [2] 0 [1] enter 3enter 2exit 1 exit 3 S exit 4 enter 4 exit 2exit 0 [4] 2 [3] pause; present S then emit T end; pause; emit S; # # 0 1 2 3 4 boot: emit S emit T Static analysis and optimizations

51 Acyclic  Correct specification  Efficient code generation Depends on the representation(GRC,circuit,…) –Compatibility, correctness, and efficiency issue (algorithmic) –Circuits = privileged representation (finer, cleaner) Unify GRC-level and circuit-level cyclicity Generate simulation code (future work) Cyclic specifications

52 Difference only on synchronizers Solution: synchronizer splitting –GRC code refinement –Inexpensive local analysis Unify GRC-level, circuit-level cyclicity K 1 [0] K 0 [0] K 0 [1] K1K1 I S GO K0K0 I I K1K1 K0K0 [ present I then present S then pause else pause end || nothing ]; emit S

53 Synopsys (S. Edwards) –Similar intermediate format, state encoding –State already encoded in the intermediate form –Better context switch encoding FTR&D (Bertin, Closse, Weil, Pulou, Poize) –Hierarchic state representation flattened into a list of pending threads ordered by a static scheduling Comparison with existing compilers G1G1 GnGn G2G2 P1P1 PnPn P2P2...

54 Results Prototype compiler (acyclic case) Examples: 1.Turbo channel bus 2.Berry’s wristwatch 3.Video generator 4.Shock absorber 5.Operating system model 6.Avionics fuel controller 7.Avionics cockpit 8.Man-machine interface Test configuration: PIII/1GHz/128M/Linux gcc-2.96 –O, 1Mcycle random or given

55 Semantics of Esterel with data Intermediate model for Esterel programs Static analysis and optimization at this level Characterization of circuit-level cyclicity at this level General code generation scheme Prototype compiler, acyclic case Correctness proofs, complete implementation (work in progress) Cyclic programs… Conclusion Future …

56 Still cyclic… Hybrid code scheduling technique –Abstract the SCCs => globally acyclic graph –Static scheduling for the acyclic graph => efficiency? –Circuit-level simulation techniques on SCCs Does not guarantee program correctness –Verify otherwise –Simulation (not implementation)

Download ppt "Optimizations for Faster Simulation of Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU Advisers: Gérard Berry – Esterel Technologies Robert de Simone – INRIA,"

Similar presentations

1 Title Page Implicit and Explicit Reachable State Space Exploration Of Esterel Logical Circuits Advisor :

1 Title Page Implicit and Explicit Reachable State Space Exploration Of Esterel Logical Circuits Advisor :
A Program Transformation For Faster Goal-Directed Search Akash Lal, Shaz Qadeer Microsoft Research.

A Program Transformation For Faster Goal-Directed Search Akash Lal, Shaz Qadeer Microsoft Research.
Software & Services Group, Developer Products Division Copyright© 2010, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. *Other brands and names are the property.

Software & Services Group, Developer Products Division Copyright© 2010, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. *Other brands and names are the property.
© S. Ramesh / Kavi Arya / Krithi Ramamritham IT-606 Embedded Systems (Software) S. Ramesh Kavi Arya Krithi Ramamritham KReSIT/ IIT Bombay.

© S. Ramesh / Kavi Arya / Krithi Ramamritham IT-606 Embedded Systems (Software) S. Ramesh Kavi Arya Krithi Ramamritham KReSIT/ IIT Bombay.
Ch. 7 Process Synchronization (1/2) 2015-04-17. 7.I Background F Producer - Consumer process :  Compiler, Assembler, Loader, · · · · · · F Bounded buffer.

Ch. 7 Process Synchronization (1/2) I Background F Producer - Consumer process :  Compiler, Assembler, Loader, · · · · · · F Bounded buffer.
Transaction Based Modeling and Verification of Hardware Protocols Xiaofang Chen, Steven M. German and Ganesh Gopalakrishnan Supported in part by Intel.

Transaction Based Modeling and Verification of Hardware Protocols Xiaofang Chen, Steven M. German and Ganesh Gopalakrishnan Supported in part by Intel.
Analyzing and Verifying Esterel Programs Taisook Han 2009-12-19, Division of Computer Science, KAIST.

Analyzing and Verifying Esterel Programs Taisook Han , Division of Computer Science, KAIST.
ESP: A Language for Programmable Devices Sanjeev Kumar, Yitzhak Mandelbaum, Xiang Yu, Kai Li Princeton University.

ESP: A Language for Programmable Devices Sanjeev Kumar, Yitzhak Mandelbaum, Xiang Yu, Kai Li Princeton University.
1 Implicit and explicit exploration of the reachable state space of Esterel logical circuits December 12 th, 2002 Yannis BRES Advisor: Gérard BERRY PhD.

1 Implicit and explicit exploration of the reachable state space of Esterel logical circuits December 12 th, 2002 Yannis BRES Advisor: Gérard BERRY PhD.
Syntax-driven partitioning for model-checking of Esterel programs Eric Vecchié - INRIA Aoste.

Syntax-driven partitioning for model-checking of Esterel programs Eric Vecchié - INRIA Aoste.
AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF CODE OPTIMIZERS FROM FORMAL SPECIFICATIONS Vineeth Kumar Paleri Regional Engineering College, calicut Kerala, India. (Currently,

AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF CODE OPTIMIZERS FROM FORMAL SPECIFICATIONS Vineeth Kumar Paleri Regional Engineering College, calicut Kerala, India. (Currently,
Optimized State Encoding for Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU.

Optimized State Encoding for Esterel Programs Dumitru POTOP-BUTUCARU.
Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved The Synchronous Language Esterel Prof. Stephen A. Edwards.

Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved The Synchronous Language Esterel Prof. Stephen A. Edwards.
Synchron’08 Jean-François LE TALLEC INRIA SOP lab, AOSTE INRIA SOP lab, EPI AOSTE ScaleoChip Company SoC Conception Methodology.

Synchron’08 Jean-François LE TALLEC INRIA SOP lab, AOSTE INRIA SOP lab, EPI AOSTE ScaleoChip Company SoC Conception Methodology.
Background information Formal verification methods based on theorem proving techniques and model­checking –to prove the absence of errors (in the formal.

Background information Formal verification methods based on theorem proving techniques and model­checking –to prove the absence of errors (in the formal.
Syntax-driven partitioning for model-checking of Esterel programs Eric Vecchié - INRIA Tick.

Syntax-driven partitioning for model-checking of Esterel programs Eric Vecchié - INRIA Tick.
© Janice Regan 2004 1 Problem-Solving Process 1. State the Problem (Problem Specification) 2. Analyze the problem: outline solution requirements and design.

© Janice Regan Problem-Solving Process 1. State the Problem (Problem Specification) 2. Analyze the problem: outline solution requirements and design.
SSP Re-hosting System Development: CLBM Overview and Module Recognition SSP Team Department of ECE Stevens Institute of Technology Presented by Hongbing.

SSP Re-hosting System Development: CLBM Overview and Module Recognition SSP Team Department of ECE Stevens Institute of Technology Presented by Hongbing.
2/11/2010 BEARS 2010 On PTIDES Programming Model John Eidson Jeff C. Jensen Edward A. Lee Slobodan Matic Jia Zou PtidyOS.

2/11/2010 BEARS 2010 On PTIDES Programming Model John Eidson Jeff C. Jensen Edward A. Lee Slobodan Matic Jia Zou PtidyOS.
Implementing Constructive Synchronous Programs on POLIS CFSM Networks G.Berry E.Sentovich Ecole des Mines de Paris / INRIA Cadence Berkeley Labs.

Implementing Constructive Synchronous Programs on POLIS CFSM Networks G.Berry E.Sentovich Ecole des Mines de Paris / INRIA Cadence Berkeley Labs.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google