|[?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs firstname.lastname@example.org (Nick Shaffner) (1998-09-13)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs email@example.com (Chris Clark USG) (1998-09-18)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-09-18)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs email@example.com (1998-09-19)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM (Clifford Click) (1998-09-22)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs firstname.lastname@example.org (William D Clinger) (1998-09-26)|
|Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs email@example.com (Peter Klausler) (1998-09-26)|
|From:||Clifford Click <cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM>|
|Date:||22 Sep 1998 14:39:35 -0400|
On 13 Sep 1998 22:44:37 -0400, "Nick Shaffner" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > 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 acm.org JavaSoft
(408) 863-3266 MS UCUP02-302
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.