|A theoretical question or two email@example.com (2002-01-28)|
|Re: A theoretical question or two firstname.lastname@example.org (Ray Dillinger) (2002-01-30)|
|Re: A theoretical question or two email@example.com (2002-02-06)|
|Re: A theoretical question or two firstname.lastname@example.org (Ray Dillinger) (2002-02-28)|
|From:||Ray Dillinger <email@example.com>|
|Date:||28 Feb 2002 00:10:45 -0500|
|References:||02-01-154 02-01-173 02-02-016|
|Posted-Date:||28 Feb 2002 00:10:45 EST|
Rick Hohensee wrote:
> Ray Dillinger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> Rick Hohensee wrote:
> >> Does greater locality of reference imply a smaller state-machine?
> >No. An array where each element refers only to its neighbors
> >has excellent locality of reference, but can be as long as you
> >make it. OTOH, a smaller state machine does imply a greater
> >locality of reference, because the memory set is small enough
> >that all of it can be local.
> I don't think arrays are a valid counterexample without some
I was thinking of an array that holds state-machine nodes,
but the array may just as easily be an array of instructions.
Consider a block of memory with machine instructions in it.
If all the jumps are short and all the data is immediate, then
it has good locality of reference regardless of how big it
is. It's the same principle.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.