Incremental compilation within Compose

1
Incremental compilationwithin Compose
2
Overview

• Conceptual model of INCRE
• Configuration of modules
• Test cases and conditions
• Incremental performance

3
Conceptual Model
dependencies
input
output
Module (normal process)
4
Example FILTH

• Input
• Iteration over all concerns with one or more
  filtermodules superimposed
• Output
• 2 dynamic objects added to the concern
• (SingleOrder , FilterModuleOrders)
• Dependencies
• Filth specification file
• The names of all superimposed filtermodules
• Copy operation
• Find the 2 dynamic objects in the history and add
  them to input object instead of calculating
  filtermoduleorders again

5
XML Configuration FILTH

• ltmodule name"FILTH" fulltype"Composestar.CTComF
  ILTH" input"Composestar.CTCom...Concern"
  phase"two" enabled"true" incremental"truegt
• ltdependenciesgt
• ltdependency type"FILE" name"specfile"gt
• ltpathgtltnode type"CONFIG
  nodevalue"FILTH_INPUT"gtlt/gtlt/pathgt
• lt/dependencygt
• ltdependency type"OBJECT" name"fmodules"gt
• ltpathgtltnode type"DYNAMIC"
  nodevalue"superImpInfo"gtlt/gt
• ltnode type"FIELD" nodevalue"theFmSIinfo"gtlt/gtlt
  /pathgt
• lt/dependencygt
• lt/dependenciesgt
• ltcomparisonsgt
• lttype fullname"Composestar.CTComReferences.Fi
  lterModuleReference"gt
• ltfield name"name"gtlt/gtlt/typegt
• lt/comparisonsgt
• lt/modulegt

6
INCREs configuration file

• Configuration of dependencies and comparisons
• Master control flow
• Platform configuration
• Enabling and disabling of modules
• Enabling and disabling of incremental process
• Verification of module input

7
Test conditions and cases (1/3)

• CPU AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor
• 3000 2.00 GHz
• Memory 512 MB of RAM
• OS Windows XP SP2

8
Test conditions and cases (2/3)

• Four examples
• EX1 VenusFlyTrap
• ( 1 cps , 4 sources , 1 filtermoduleorder )
• EX2 Pacman Demo
• ( 3 cps , 21 sources , 11 filtermoduleorders )
• EX3 TextSharpExamples
• ( 4 cps , 107 sources , 124 filtermoduleorders
  )
• EX4 QuakeLevel
• ( 12 cps , 474 sources , 882
  filtermoduleorders )

9
Test conditions and cases (3/3)

• Six scenarios
• S1 No changes
• S2 Modify signature of one concern
• S3 Add tracing aspect
• S4 Modify one method block
• S5 Add one new joinpoint
• S6 Modify selector into equivalent one

10
Non-incremental performance of modules
633.2 s
11
Incremental performance (1/3)
12
Incremental performance (2/3)
13
Incremental performance (3/3)
14
Conclusions

• Harvester and Collector dominate smaller examples
• RECOMA and ILICIT dominate upscaled examples
• Incremental profit increases when examples are
  upscaled (trend around 75)
• ILICIT should not weave on direct results of
  RECOMA
• SIGN is showing worst incremental performance