Comparative Analysis of High Level Programming for Reconfigurable Computers: Methodology and Empirical Study

E. El-Araby, M. Taher, M. Abouellail, T. El-Ghazawi, G. Newby
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of High Level Programming for Reconfigurable Computers: Methodology and Empirical Study","authors":"E. El-Araby, M. Taher, M. Abouellail, T. El-Ghazawi, G. Newby","doi":"10.1109/SPL.2007.371731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most application developers are willing to give up some performance and chip utilization in exchange of productivity. High-level tools for developing reconfigurable computing applications trade performance with ease-of-use. However, it is hard to know in a general sense how much performance and utilization one is giving up and how much ease-of-use he/she is gaining. More importantly, given the lack of standards and the uncertainty generated by sales literature, it is very hard to know the real differences that exist among different high-level programming paradigms. In order to do so, one needs a formal methodology and/or a framework that uses a common set of metrics and common experiments over a number of representative tools. In this work, we consider three representative high-level tools, Impulse-C, Mitrion-C, and DSPLogic in the Cray XD1 environment. These tools were selected to represent imperative programming, functional programming and graphical programming, and thereby demonstrate the applicability of our methodology. It will be shown that in spite of the disparity in concepts behind those tools, our methodology will be able to formally uncover the basic differences among them and analytically assess their comparative performance, utilization, and ease-of-use.","PeriodicalId":419253,"journal":{"name":"2007 3rd Southern Conference on Programmable Logic","volume":"509 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"40","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2007 3rd Southern Conference on Programmable Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPL.2007.371731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

Abstract

Most application developers are willing to give up some performance and chip utilization in exchange of productivity. High-level tools for developing reconfigurable computing applications trade performance with ease-of-use. However, it is hard to know in a general sense how much performance and utilization one is giving up and how much ease-of-use he/she is gaining. More importantly, given the lack of standards and the uncertainty generated by sales literature, it is very hard to know the real differences that exist among different high-level programming paradigms. In order to do so, one needs a formal methodology and/or a framework that uses a common set of metrics and common experiments over a number of representative tools. In this work, we consider three representative high-level tools, Impulse-C, Mitrion-C, and DSPLogic in the Cray XD1 environment. These tools were selected to represent imperative programming, functional programming and graphical programming, and thereby demonstrate the applicability of our methodology. It will be shown that in spite of the disparity in concepts behind those tools, our methodology will be able to formally uncover the basic differences among them and analytically assess their comparative performance, utilization, and ease-of-use.
可重构计算机高级程序设计的比较分析:方法论与实证研究
大多数应用程序开发人员都愿意放弃一些性能和芯片利用率来换取生产力。用于开发可重构计算应用程序的高级工具将性能与易用性相交换。但是,很难从一般意义上知道一个人放弃了多少性能和利用率,以及他/她获得了多少易用性。更重要的是,由于缺乏标准和销售文献产生的不确定性,很难知道不同高级编程范例之间存在的真正差异。为了做到这一点,我们需要一个正式的方法和/或一个框架,它使用一组通用的度量标准和一些代表性工具上的通用实验。在这项工作中,我们考虑了Cray XD1环境中的三个代表性高级工具,Impulse-C, Mitrion-C和DSPLogic。选择这些工具来表示命令式编程、函数式编程和图形化编程,从而展示了我们方法的适用性。它将显示,尽管这些工具背后的概念存在差异,但我们的方法将能够正式揭示它们之间的基本差异,并分析地评估它们的比较性能、利用率和易用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信