Compiler Trap-If-Late Instruction for Dynamic Timing Verification

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing compiler technologies rely on static timing analysis, which may be too strict or inaccurate in cases with data-dependent code, leading to false rejections or warnings, as they use worst-case metrics that do not account for statistically unlikely input patterns or impossible execution paths.

Innovation Solution

A compiler that inserts a 'trap-if-late' instruction into the compiled code, allowing for runtime checks to ensure timing constraints are met, and a processor with logic to decode and execute this instruction, generating an exception if the execution time is late relative to a target value.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If static timing analysis using worst-case metrics is used, then timing constraints can be verified, but false rejections occur for statistically unlikely or impossible execution paths

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetiming constraint verificationVSAvoidtiming measurement accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from static timing analysis to dynamic timing verification by inserting runtime trap instructions into the compiled code. These instructions actively monitor execution time during actual program runs, allowing the system to adapt timing verification to real execution paths rather than relying on predetermined worst-case scenarios. This dynamic approach resolves the contradiction by making timing checks accurate to actual behavior while maintaining reliability through continuous monitoring.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The trap instructions provide feedback mechanisms that actively report when timing constraints are violated during execution. By incorporating runtime feedback loops where the processor monitors its own timing compliance and can trigger exceptions or corrections, the system achieves both reliable verification and precise measurement. The feedback from actual execution paths eliminates false rejections while maintaining constraint enforcement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If worst-case metric is used for data-dependent code, then timing safety can be ensured, but code rejection occurs for statistically tolerable frequency violations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetiming safetyVSAvoidcode compilation success rate
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts timing verification based on actual runtime behavior rather than static worst-case assumptions. By using trap instructions that monitor real execution paths, the system can distinguish between genuinely unsafe code and code that merely exceeds timing constraints under statistically unlikely conditions. This increases compilation success rate while preserving timing safety for actual execution scenarios.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the parameter of timing verification from fixed worst-case metrics to dynamic runtime measurements. By modifying how timing is measured and evaluated - using actual execution time data captured by trap instructions rather than predetermined worst-case values - the system achieves both reliability and higher productivity by accepting code that meets timing constraints under normal operating conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Ease of manufacture

If static analysis is used for data-dependent code, then compilation is simple, but timing analysis becomes too strict and inaccurate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompilation simplicityVSAvoidtiming analysis accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the compilation process into two distinct phases: a simple static compilation phase that generates code with embedded trap instructions, and a dynamic runtime phase where actual timing verification occurs. This segmentation maintains compilation simplicity by keeping the compiler's role limited to inserting monitoring instructions, while transferring the complex timing analysis to runtime execution where actual data values are known, thereby achieving both ease of manufacture and measurement precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The trap instructions serve as intermediaries between the compiler and the timing verification process. Rather than requiring the compiler to perform complex dynamic analysis, the trap instructions mediate by capturing runtime timing data and enabling verification without burdening the compilation process. This intermediary approach preserves compilation simplicity while achieving accurate timing measurement during execution.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP2499568B1Timing analysis
Publication Date: 2014.03.05 XMOS
  • EP2499568B1 patent drawingFigure 1a~1b
  • EP2499568B1 patent drawingFigure 2

AI summary

One aspect of the present invention provides processor comprising: an execution unit arranged to execute a sequence of instructions each comprising a respective opcode; and a counter coupled to the execution unit and arranged to generate a periodically updated counter value during execution. The execution unit comprises logic configured to identify an opcode representing a trap-if-late instruction in said sequence, and in response to execute the trap-if-late instruction by comparing a target value to the counter value and generating an exception on condition that the counter value represents a time that is late relative to said target value. Another aspect provides a compiler for inserting trap-if-late instructions based on timing constraints in higher-level code.