Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluation on SPEC2006 #9

Open
PeimingLiu opened this issue May 26, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Evaluation on SPEC2006 #9

PeimingLiu opened this issue May 26, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@PeimingLiu
Copy link

Hi,
I tried to evaluate Softbound on SPEC2006, but it showed a significant overhead (for bzip, 5x slower than native run). Is there any extra optimizations that I have to do to reduce the overhead?

Thanks

@santoshn
Copy link
Owner

It is possible that the checks are not getting inlined. Can you check if the checks and softboundcets wrappers are getting inlined?

@PeimingLiu
Copy link
Author

Thanks, I inlined them, and the runtime overhead for bzip2 is now about 1.7x, is it a fair result?

@santoshn
Copy link
Owner

1.7X with spatial and temporal safety seems to be in right ballpark. That said, I have not updated this code base in 7 years. You may be interested in Tina Jung's work on eliminating bounds check in the SoftBound context; http://www.prog.uni-saarland.de/projects/pico/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants