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) |
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
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.