Related articles |
---|
rearranging code invalidates liveness info fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1994-06-10) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info preston@noel.cs.rice.edu (1994-06-13) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info cliffc@noel.cs.rice.edu (1994-06-13) |
rearranging code invalidates liveness info ssimmons@convex.com (1994-06-13) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info newburn@aslan.ece.cmu.edu (1994-06-13) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info mernst@research.microsoft.com (1994-06-15) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info hbaker@netcom.com (1994-06-16) |
Re: rearranging code invalidates liveness info cliffc@noel.cs.rice.edu (1994-06-16) |
[1 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | preston@noel.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) |
Keywords: | optimize |
Organization: | Rice University, Houston |
References: | 94-06-070 |
Date: | Mon, 13 Jun 1994 13:44:44 GMT |
fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>The problem I've run into is that this organization seems to make code
>reorganization for optimization purposes quite difficult, since anything
>but the most trivial rearrangements will invalidate the annotations on the
>code. I'm sure this problem must have been encountered by many of you
>before. How do compiler writers usually handle this problem?
People writing experimental compilers tend to redo analyses after any
significant transformation. It's easy, correct, and not usually too
slow. People writing production compilers have a harder time, hence
the interest on incremental data-flow analysis. An example of an
industrial approach is described in
author="Suneel Jain and Carol Thompson",
title="An Efficient Approach to Data Flow Analysis in a Multi Pass
Global Optimizer",
pages="154--163",
journal=sigplan,
year=1988,
month=jul,
volume=23,
number=7,
note=pldi88
Preston Briggs
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.