Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs

Clifford Click <>
22 Sep 1998 14:39:35 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (Nick Shaffner) (1998-09-13)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (Chris Clark USG) (1998-09-18)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (1998-09-18)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (1998-09-19)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (Clifford Click) (1998-09-22)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (William D Clinger) (1998-09-26)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs (Peter Klausler) (1998-09-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Clifford Click <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Sep 1998 14:39:35 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems
References: 98-09-042 98-09-064
Keywords: design

On 13 Sep 1998 22:44:37 -0400, "Nick Shaffner" <> > wrote:
  >.. Also, having dealt only
  >with trees in the past, it seems that tuples might be easier to
  >manipulate - is this generally true?

Dwight VandenBerghe wrote:
> I think it's the other way around, Nick. Tuples can be a pain to work
> with. Trees keep the natural order around ...

I've done both trees and tuples in both academic and industrial
settings. I prefer tuples because of the expressive power. Many
loops come into the optimizer from user-land that are not nicely
expressed in some syntax tree. The algorithms for finding loops (and
other interesting program structures) are well known and fast. I
certainly build and use loop trees during optimization, but they are
built up from the tuples not handed down from the user's syntax.

Cliff Click Compiler Designer and Researcher
cliffc at JavaSoft
(408) 863-3266 MS UCUP02-302

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.