Daniel
e8e457eae9
Some checks are pending
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, 1.10) (push) Waiting to run
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, 1.6) (push) Waiting to run
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, pre) (push) Waiting to run
18 lines
1013 B
TeX
18 lines
1013 B
TeX
\chapter[Conclusion]{Conclusion and Future Work}
|
|
\label{cha:conclusion}
|
|
|
|
Summarise the results
|
|
talk again how a typical input is often not complex enough (basically repeat that statement from comparison section in evaluation)
|
|
|
|
\section{Future Work}
|
|
talk about what can be improved
|
|
|
|
Frontend:
|
|
1.) extend frontend to support ternary operators (basically if the frontend sees a multiplication and an addition it should collapse them to an FMA instruction)
|
|
|
|
Transpiler:
|
|
1.) transpile expression directly from Julia AST -> would save time because no intermediate representation needs to be created (looses step and gains performance, but also makes transpiler itself more complex; since expressions do not need to be sent to the GPU, the IR theoretically isn't needed)
|
|
2.) Better register management strategy might be helpful -> look into register pressure etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CPU Interpreter: Probably more worth to dive into parallelising cpu interpreter itself (not really future work, as you wouldn't write a paper about that) |