Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20070226722
Please help the USPTO examine the application by evaluating the relevance of the publicly submitted prior art to the patent application.
Peer To Patent forwards the Top 10 most relevant prior art submissions and their annotations to the USPTO.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Prior Art Detail
Summary / Description
| Summary / Description | Conference article discussing relevant prior art; cited by the paper in [[prior art 90]]. Here a program dynamically chooses among multiple statically compiled/optimized code variants based upon an execution time measure. |
Basic Information
| Type of Prior Art | Print Publication |
| Publication Title * | Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'97 |
| Author | Pedro Diniz, Martin Rinard |
| ISBN | |
| Page Range | pp 71-84 |
| Medium | Other printed publication |
| Publication Date * | June 1997 |
| URL | http://www.isi.edu/~pedro/PUBLI... |
Notes / To Do
| Notes | |
Excerpt
Excerpt This paper presents dynamic feedback, a technique that enables computations to adapt dynamically to different execution environments. A compiler that uses dynamic feedback produces several different versions of the same source code; each version uses a different optimization policy. The generated code alternately performs sampling phases and production phases. Each sampling phase measures the overhead of each version in the current environment. Each
production phase uses the version with the least overhead in the previous sampling phase. The computation periodically resamples to adjust dynamically to changes in the environment. |
Relevance
Claims
1
Relevance
See above excerpt. What it describes is very similar to this claim. In the prior art, a specific test condition is used, namely a comparison of overheads among prior sampling phase results for the alternative code versions.
See above excerpt. What it describes is very similar to this claim. In the prior art, a specific test condition is used, namely a comparison of overheads among prior sampling phase results for the alternative code versions.
Claim Chart
All
2
Relevance
The addition here is not novel by itself; test condition evaluation and the response to same in a program commonly involves the above elements.
The addition here is not novel by itself; test condition evaluation and the response to same in a program commonly involves the above elements.
Claim Chart
All
3
Relevance
Obviously, in order for multiple differently optimized code versions to be available to choose from at execution time, the executable module must be created containing those alternate code versoins. True for both the current application and for the cited prior art.
Obviously, in order for multiple differently optimized code versions to be available to choose from at execution time, the executable module must be created containing those alternate code versoins. True for both the current application and for the cited prior art.
Claim Chart
All
7
Relevance
"Different optimization parameters" are equivalent to the "different optimization policy" expressed in the prior art.
"Different optimization parameters" are equivalent to the "different optimization policy" expressed in the prior art.
Claim Chart
All
0 days left
