|Dynamic Binding firstname.lastname@example.org (Rodrigo Augusto B. Ferreira) (2000-01-15)|
|Re: Dynamic Binding email@example.com (2000-01-19)|
|Re: Dynamic Binding firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-01-19)|
|Re: Dynamic Binding email@example.com (Erik Ernst) (2000-01-19)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Dave Harris)|
|Date:||19 Jan 2000 01:10:36 -0500|
|Organization:||Burry Holms Research|
> I was wondering if using dynamic type resolution, by compiling a
> lookup switch statement for each virtual call, would be valuable to
> increase the possibility of optimization.
I believe that is roughly the approach used by the SmallEiffel compiler.
(I don't have an URL but a web search should find references.)
They say it works pretty well. Instead of a "switch" they have a binary
tree of "if/else" statements. Apparently these are more suited to some
branch prediction hardware than an indirect branch.
> Any pointers and oppinions are welcome.
You might also be interested in run-time type-feedback techniques. There
are some relevant papers using the Self language, at
Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.