REVIEW 1 cited by
Scheduling Languages: A Past, Present, and Future Taxonomy
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Scheduling languages express to a compiler a sequence of optimizations to apply. Compilers that support a scheduling language interface allow exploration of compiler optimizations, i.e., exploratory compilers. While scheduling languages have become a common feature of tools for expert users, the proliferation of these languages without unifying common features may be confusing to users. Moreover, we recognize a need to organize the compiler developer community around common exploratory compiler infrastructure, and future advances to address, for example, data layout and data movement. To support a broader set of users may require raising the level of abstraction. This paper provides a taxonomy of scheduling languages, first discussing their origins in iterative compilation and autotuning, noting the common features and how they are used in existing frameworks, and then calling for changes to increase their utility and portability.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Comparing Parallel Functional Array Languages: Programming and Performance
A five-language benchmark study finds that on 70% of 36 measured baseline instances the best functional array language reaches at least 80% of hand-optimized baseline performance, though only Futhark and DaCe are cons...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.