|Effectiveness of compilers today email@example.com (1993-02-14)|
|Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-18)|
|Re: Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) email@example.com (1993-02-19)|
|Re: Superoptimizers (was Re: Effectiveness of compilers today) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-21)|
|From:||email@example.com (David Keppel)|
|Organization:||Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle|
|Date:||Sun, 21 Feb 1993 02:02:27 GMT|
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>>[Can a program grovel the ASTs of a set of programs and extract
>> "common" combinations of operations that should be candidates for
>> superoptimizer investigation?]
email@example.com (Preston Briggs):
>[Davidson and Fraser 84 automatic generation of peephole optimizers.]
%A Robert R. Henry
%T Code Generation by Table Lookup
%I University of Washington Computer Science
%X The code generator is ``trained'' by feeding it sample input DAGs.
Special patterns are generated for DAGs that occur frequently. Thus,
the machine description is augmented with (virtual) instructions that
correspond to frequently-occuring DAGs.
;-D on ( Dr. Seuss-peroptmizers ) Pardo
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.