| J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, 2001. |
....the usability of the tool in the real world. In principle, these real life programs could be tested using a black box approach with the execution time as result. Then testing consists of maximizing the result function, i.e. the dynamic path length, varying the input data and submission time [29, 26]. Unfortunately, this approach is not feasible with real applications where the amount of input data is huge, and some execution paths may damage the hardware (robot) or operator. We therefore are required to exercise some discretion in controlling the execution of the application kernels. Tables ....
F. Muller and J. Wegener. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. In Proc. 19th Real Time Technology and Applications Symp., pages 179--188, Madrid, Spain, June 1998. IEEE.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, Nov. 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, Nov. 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, Nov. 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, Nov. 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the veri cation of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241-268, November 2001.
....loop bodies only require a few traversals to bound the WCET for the entire loop. We capture the worst case behavior of architectural components along execution paths and compose these paths for loops, functions, and, ultimately, the entire application, to derive cycle counts that bound the WCET [1,2,11,23,24,25,26,27,38,39,40]. Figure 1 shows the organization of the timing analysis environment, which has been adapted to model the VISA and the Simplescalar instruction set (PISA) 6] The application is compiled to assembly code using the gcc PISA compiler. Control flow and instruction data memory references are ....
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, Nov. 2001.
....23] generally relies on a prior knowledge about the worst case execution time (WCET) of each task, either statically or at admission time. However, experiments show a wide variation between longest and shortest execution times for many embedded applications, ranging between 30 and 89 of the WCET [24, 26]. Prior work has shown the potential to save energy by combining these scaling techniques with operating system scheduling, and signi cant savings have been reported for general purpose computing systems [6, 9, 13, 16, 18, 25, 20, 8] as well as real time systems [11, 12, 14, 22, 19, 10, 4, 17, 7] ....
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the veri cation of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241-268, November 2001.
....real time systems relies on #######knowledge of the worst case execution time (WCET) of hard real time tasks to check if the deadline of a task can be met. A safe upper bound on the WCET of a task can be provided through static analysis, dynamic analysis or even a combination of both techniques [34, 30, 15, 41, 24, 16, 1, 22, 23, 9, 29, 38]. Regardless of the methods utilized to obtain the WCET of tasks, experiments show a wide variation between longest and shortest execution times for manyembedded applications. In [38] execution times of real world embedded tasks vary by as much as 87 relative to their measured WCET. Speci ....
....analysis, dynamic analysis or even a combination of both techniques [34, 30, 15, 41, 24, 16, 1, 22, 23, 9, 29, 38] Regardless of the methods utilized to obtain the WCET of tasks, experiments show a wide variation between longest and shortest execution times for manyembedded applications. In [38], execution times of real world embedded tasks vary by as much as 87 relative to their measured WCET. Speci cally, variations of 78 , 87 and 74 where observed for graphics, defense, automotive tasks while 30 and 89 variations were reported for the benchmarks matrix and sort, respectively, ....
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the veri cation of timing constraints. ######### #######, 21(3):241-268, November 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the verification of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, 21(3):241--268, 2001.
No context found.
J. Wegener and F. Mueller. A comparison of static analysis and evolutionary testing for the veri cation of timing constraints. Real-Time Systems, page (accepted), 2001. 98
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC