Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Definition of basic blocks plfriko@yahoo.de (Christian Christmann) (2005-11-08) |
| Re: Definition of basic blocks wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2005-11-12) |
| Re: Definition of basic blocks tjs_ng@yahoo.de (Thomas Schilling) (2005-11-12) |
| Re: Definition of basic blocks pohjalai@cc.helsinki.fi (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2005-11-12) |
| Re: Definition of basic blocks bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (2005-11-27) |
| Re: Definition of basic blocks DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2005-11-29) |
| From: | Thomas Schilling <tjs_ng@yahoo.de> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 12 Nov 2005 16:38:32 -0500 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 05-11-053 |
| Keywords: | analysis |
| Posted-Date: | 12 Nov 2005 16:38:32 EST |
Christian Christmann wrote:
> Are both version correct?
I'd say so - some reasons:
If you want to define as "a sequence of instructions whose order is
independent of the data" then you need not split at call places, because
you can easily "emulate" this by letting defs(call-instr) =
caller-save-regs. This would mean fewer blocks and thus potentially
faster analyses.
OTOH, if you want more sophisticated analyses, e.g. inter-procedure
register allocation, you probably do better making it an extra block,
especially in presence of indirect (i.e. data-dependent) calls.
Just some random thoughts ... Haven't done the latter, so far.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.