|Extended Optimization using Peephole strategy email@example.com (Ray S. Dillinger) (1996-11-05)|
|Re: Extended Optimization using Peephole strategy firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1996-11-06)|
|Re: Extended Optimization using Peephole strategy email@example.com (1996-11-10)|
|Re: Extended Optimization using Peephole strategy jgm@CS.Cornell.EDU (Greg Morrisett) (1996-11-12)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (Zoltan Somogyi)|
|Date:||6 Nov 1996 13:47:55 -0500|
|Organization:||Comp Sci, University of Melbourne|
"Ray S. Dillinger" <email@example.com> writes:
>Basically, I am using a peephole optimizer to do most of the
>optimizing job -- but with additional information coded in the
>"instruction set" I'm using for my intermediate form, including
>variable lifetime expiry, semantic binding extents for variables and
>environments, and so on.
The compiler for the pure logic programming language Mercury uses a
technique that sounds similar to what you are describing. At certain
points in the IR code, the code generator includes pseudoinstructions
that give information such as which registers are live at that point.
Some of the optimizations that transform the IR depend on this information.
In fact, in my other window I am working on fixing a bug caused by these
annotations not being kept up to date by another optimization.
Zoltan Somogyi <firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU> http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/
Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.