Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Scheduling Languages: A Past, Present, and Future Taxonomy

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.19927 v1 pith:5FSUXSLU submitted 2024-10-25 cs.PL cs.DCcs.PF

classification cs.PLcs.DCcs.PF
keywords languagesschedulingcommoncompileruserscompilersdataexploratory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Scheduling languages express to a compiler a sequence of optimizations to apply. Compilers that support a scheduling language interface allow exploration of compiler optimizations, i.e., exploratory compilers. While scheduling languages have become a common feature of tools for expert users, the proliferation of these languages without unifying common features may be confusing to users. Moreover, we recognize a need to organize the compiler developer community around common exploratory compiler infrastructure, and future advances to address, for example, data layout and data movement. To support a broader set of users may require raising the level of abstraction. This paper provides a taxonomy of scheduling languages, first discussing their origins in iterative compilation and autotuning, noting the common features and how they are used in existing frameworks, and then calling for changes to increase their utility and portability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparing Parallel Functional Array Languages: Programming and Performance

    cs.PL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A five-language benchmark study finds that on 70% of 36 measured baseline instances the best functional array language reaches at least 80% of hand-optimized baseline performance, though only Futhark and DaCe are cons...

Pith tools