Re: question on control dependence

dkchen@sp91.csrd.uiuc.edu (Ding-Kai Chen)
Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:04:36 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: question on control dependence cliffc@rice.edu (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak) (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence bwilson@shasta.stanford.edu (1992-12-15)
Re: question on control dependence paco@cs.rice.edu (1992-12-16)
Re: question on control dependence dkchen@sp91.csrd.uiuc.edu (1992-12-16)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: dkchen@sp91.csrd.uiuc.edu (Ding-Kai Chen)
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:04:36 GMT
References: 92-12-056 92-12-070
Keywords: design

preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes:
>The general case of more than 2 succesoors is handled like this...


> CD(X) = union(P(S)) - intersection(P(S)), for S in successors(X)


>(This is a much simpler version of another answer I posted earlier)


This can be simplified (also with less computation) further:


CD(X) = union(P(S)) - P(X)


I think it is not difficut to prove that


{intersection(P(S)), for S in successors(X)}=P(X)


Similarly,


CD(X,L) = P(X_L) - P(X)


where CD(X,L) is the set of nodes control depend on X with label L and X_L
is the successor of X with label L.
Ding-Kai Chen


--
Ding-Kai Chen University of Illinois
(217)244-0046 Center for Supercomputing R&D,
dkchen@csrd.uiuc.edu 465 CSRL 1308 W. Main St. Urbana, IL 61801




--


Post a followup to this message

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