2008
DOI: 10.1109/tvlsi.2008.2001562
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Code Compression and Decompression for Coarse-Grain Reconfigurable Architectures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 7 shows the compression ratio comparison with both post-context-generation methods. As can be seen, the proposed method outperforms both dictionary-based compression [8] and dynamic compression [7]. Considering both of them need extra hardware support, the proposed method has more obvious advantages.…”
Section: Comparison With Post-context-generation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Table 7 shows the compression ratio comparison with both post-context-generation methods. As can be seen, the proposed method outperforms both dictionary-based compression [8] and dynamic compression [7]. Considering both of them need extra hardware support, the proposed method has more obvious advantages.…”
Section: Comparison With Post-context-generation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…We also compare our proposed method with two postcontext-generation methods, DCC [7] and CS3 [8], in terms of the context compression ratio and execution performance. Table 6 shows the comparison results for context size and compression ratio.…”
Section: Comparison With Post-context-generation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first interesting finding discovered through our observation is that many frequently executed code on a specific FU are also frequently executed on other FUs in a CGRA. It means that per-FU dictionaries (local dictionaries), which is an idea in [3],have duplicated codes.We reduced this inefficiency using a global dictionary, a common dictionary for all FUs saving most frequently executed code across the FUs.…”
Section: B Instruction Analysis and Lessonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as shown in the fifth column in the TABLE I, the advanced compiler does not generate as many NOPs. The sixth and seventh columns show that the Location Tag bit width and average overhead for each group when the work in [3] is applied to the target code of this paper. The Location Tag is a prefix for all compressed code that indicates its target composition.…”
Section: B Nop Eliminationmentioning
confidence: 99%