Re: Banerjee inequality

rcmetzger <rcmetzger@grandecom.net>
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:23:37 -0800

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-02)
Re: Banerjee inequality rcmetzger@grandecom.net (rcmetzger) (2007-11-04)
Re: Banerjee inequality jle@ural.owlnet.rice.edu (2007-11-05)
Re: Banerjee inequality gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-11-05)
Re: Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-06)
Re: Banerjee inequality pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2007-11-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: rcmetzger <rcmetzger@grandecom.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:23:37 -0800
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-11-006
Keywords: analysis
Posted-Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:29:35 EST

How about
Dependence Analysis for Supercomputing, U. Banerjee, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1988


On Nov 2, 3:32 am, Pertti Kellomdki <pertti.kellom...@tut.fi> wrote:
> I am trying to wrap my head around the Banerjee inequality (a basis
> for a particular form of dependence testing in loops). While I
> understand the gross outline, I am trying to work out the details to
> convince myself. However, the proofs in Allen and Kennedy's Optimizing
> Compilers for Modern Architectures are given in such high level that I
> am having a hard time filling in some of the gaps.
>
> Does anyone know of sources where the proofs would be spelled
> out in more detail?


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.