Clinton L. Jeffery and Ralph Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software -- Practice & Experience, 24(11):1025-- 1049, November 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....may be limited. On the other hand, assembly code can be instrumented almost automatically, but is strongly platformdependent, and thus portability becomes a major issue. In view of the considerations above, it is natural to implement directors in environments that provide interpreted execution [13, 19, 20]: the underlying interpreter can indeed be extended with special support for debugging and performance monitoring, and events like variable referencing, statement execution, program interruption, function call and return, execution run time errors can be easily detected [12] However, even using ....

C.L. Je#ery and R.E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software - Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, 1994.

....ease of modification to the number of intermodule dependencies a source file has. Checks can be inserted to check for the aliasing of pointers to determine what optimizations would be profitable. It can also be used to support graphical performance monitoring in the spirit of Jeffery and Griswold [6] by automatically inserting display calls around interface uses. Other Uses There are many other uses for extensible compilation. For example, many uses of Atom can also be done using MAGIK(the tradeoff is less generality for more information and optimization) It provides an easy way to ....

Clinton L. Jeffery and Ralph E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software---Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, November 1994.

....ease of modification to the number of intermodule dependencies a source file has. Checks can be inserted to check for the aliasing of pointers to determine what optimizations would be profitable. It can also be used to support graphical performance monitoring in the spirit of Jeffery and Griswold [9] by automatically inserting display calls around interface uses. 5 Discussion Magik attempts to literally make library design language design. It does this by attacking the three crucial differences between writing a function level interface and defining an input language and compiler. The ....

Clinton L. Jeffery and Ralph E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software---Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, November 1994.

....implementing the best method of presenting information from the execution stream. This alone is formidable. Consequently, monitor writing and development is obviated by more traditional debugging methodologies such as using source level debuggers, profiling, or hand 1 The Icon Monitor Framework [Jeff94] is an exception, providing facilities for exploratory development of high level execution monitors on programs written in Icon. 3 insertion of printfs. 1.1 Motivation The C programming language is a difficult programming language. It is difficult because it is low level and, as a result, is ....

C. L. Jeffery and R. E. Griswold, A Framework for Execution Monitoring in Icon, Software: Practice and Experience, Vol. 24(11), 1025-1049, Nov. 1994.

....primitives also eliminate the need for a separate debugger on the target machine, which enables faster execution of debugging primitives. Another important application area for Dynascope is monitoring. Most extensive monitoring capabilities are usually provided in interpreted environments [17, 23, 33]. One approach to monitoring is to use operating system primitives [13] There primitives provide only a limited range of capabilities. A common approach is to instrument the user program with code, which produces required monitoring information. Instrumentation is incorporated in the source code ....

C. L. Jeffery and R. E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software-- Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, November 1994.

....it is to obtain. The most common ways for gathering information are through manual instrumentation [Brow84] run time instrumentation [Laru95] and language supported instrumentation [Henr90] Language supported instrumentation includes preprocessor instrumentation and interpreter instrumentation [Jeff94]. Manual instrumentation of each program being monitored is too labor intensive. It adds additional effort when an instrumented program is modified. The information obtained from run time instrumentation is usually too low level. The modification is done at machine language level and is ....

....TP event request artificial event event report EM TP EM (c) b) a) Figure 3.2: Several configurations using a MC. from [Jeff93] 3. 4 Advantages and disadvantages of the MC approach Since Alamo s design is based on an execution monitoring framework developed for the Icon programming language [Jeff94] and generalizes that model to encompass compiled, systems programming languages, the three major advantages of using MCs in the execution monitoring are similar to those described in [Jeff93] They are modularity, specialization, and extensibility. 36 Modularity With a MC, monitors can be ....

C. L. Jeffery and R. E. Griswold, A Framework for Execution Monitoring in Icon, Software: Practice and Experience, Vol. 24(11), 1025-1049, Nov. 1994.

....to appear, primarily due to the high cost of developing such tools. This motivates the focus of our research: reducing the cost of writing monitors. A monitor framework for the Icon programming language presented one approach that reduces development costs for a broad class of execution monitors [2]. That framework provided monitor writers with solutions for several problems inherent in the execution monitoring realm, such as access to and control of another program s execution, and efficient techniques for dealing with the large amount of information to be processed. Because the framework ....

Clinton L. Jeffery and Ralph E. Griswold, "A Framework for Execution Monitoring in Icon," Software---Practice and Experience, Vol. 24(11), November 1994, pp. 1025-1049.

No context found.

Clinton L. Jeffery and Ralph Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software -- Practice & Experience, 24(11):1025-- 1049, November 1994.

No context found.

C.L. Je#ery and R.E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software - Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, 1994.

No context found.

C.L. Je#ery and R.E. Griswold. A framework for execution monitoring in Icon. Software - Practice and Experience, 24(11):1025--1049, 1994.

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