On the use of diagnostic dependence-analysis tools in parallel programming: Experiences using PTOOL

Abstract

Although considerable technology has been developed for debugging and developing sequential programs, producing verifiably correct parallel code is a much harder task. In view of the large number of possible scheduling sequences, exhaustive testing is not a feasible method for determining whether a given parallel program is correct; nor have there been sufficient theoretical developments to allow the automatic verification of parallel programs. PTOOL, a tool being developed at Rice University in collaboration with users at Los Alamos National Laboratory, provides an alternative mechanism for producing correct parallel code. PTOOL is a semi-automatic tool for detecting implicit parallelism in sequential Fortran code. It uses vectorizing compiler techniques to identify dependences preventing the parallelization of sequential regions. According to the model supported by PTOOL, a programmer should first implement and test his program using traditional sequential debugging techniques. Then, using PTOOL, he can select loop bodies that can be safely executed in parallel. At Los Alamos, we have been interested in examining the role of dependence-analysis tools in the parallel programming process. Therefore, we have used PTOOL as a static debugging tool to analyze parallel Fortran programs. Our experiences using PTOOL lead us to conclude that dependence-analysis tools are useful to today's parallel programmers. Dependence-analysis is particularly useful in the development of asynchronous parallel code. With a tool like PTOOL, a programmer can guarantee that processor scheduling cannot affect the results of his parallel program. If a programmer wishes to implement a partially parallelized region through the use of synchronization primitives, however, he will find that dependence analysis is less useful. While a dependence-analysis tool can greatly simplify the task of writing synchronization code, the ultimate responsibility of correctness is left to the programmer.