|basic question about cps firstname.lastname@example.org (2012-11-12)|
|Re: basic question about cps email@example.com (2012-11-14)|
|Re: basic question about cps firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefan Monnier) (2012-11-14)|
|Re: basic question about cps email@example.com (2012-11-21)|
|Date:||Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:05:49 -0800 (PST)|
|Injection-Date:||Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:05:49 +0000|
|Posted-Date:||12 Nov 2012 16:29:52 EST|
Hi, I have a basic question about writing a compiler using continuation-passing style
as an intermediate language.
It seems to me that if one performs the cps transformation one is left
with many 'computed' calls (that is call to variables holding
procedure values, namely, the continuation). It seems that compiling
such 'computed' calls would be much slower than compiling 'direct'
calls to known procedures.
1. Is this assumption valid?
2. If it is, then it seems that cps is not very useful without some
non-trivial control flow analysis...??
Please excuse me if this question is very basic.
[Yes, it assumes a reasonbly good optimizer. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.