|Squashing C Source firstname.lastname@example.org (H T Fallside) (1990-12-05)|
|Re: Squashing C Source email@example.com (1990-12-11)|
|Re: Squashing C Source firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-12-14)|
|Re: Squashing C Source email@example.com (1990-12-17)|
|Re: Squashing C Source firstname.lastname@example.org (H T Fallside) (1990-12-17)|
|Re: Squashing C Source email@example.com (Lee Woodbury) (1990-12-17)|
|Re: Squashing C Source Olivier.Levillain@cl.bull.fr (1990-12-18)|
|From:||H T Fallside <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Organization:||Edinburgh University Computing Service|
|Date:||17 Dec 90 15:51:22 GMT|
In article <email@example.com.UUCP> firstname.lastname@example.org (Dave Jones) writes:
First thanks to those people writing to tell me about Jack Davidson's
and Ann Holler's inliner (see 1254) which sounds like being
just the thing I need.
>Now then, please tell us why in the world you would want to make an entire
>program into one procedure.
I'm looking at doing some silicon compilation on dsp algorithms written
in C. It's much easier to analyse the allocation requirements, loop
nesting depth and any parallelism when the code is non-procedural. I'm not
concerned at this stage about size or speed issues on host machines
just whether the code remains compilable after i've been playing around
with it :-)
>I will leave you with one last word: "recursion".
I was under the impression that any recursive procedure could be
exchanged for an iterative one (and vice versa) am i wrong ?
[It's true, recursion and iteration are equivalent, but the translation can
be ugly, particularly in the presence of things like indirect recursion via
function pointers. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.