Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs

Clifford Click <cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM>
22 Sep 1998 14:39:35 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs nshaf@intur.net (Nick Shaffner) (1998-09-13)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (Chris Clark USG) (1998-09-18)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs dwight@pentasoft.com (1998-09-18)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs heinrich@idirect.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 will@ccs.neu.edu (William D Clinger) (1998-09-26)
Re: [?] Trees vs. Tuples for IRs pmk@sgi.com (Peter Klausler) (1998-09-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Clifford Click <cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM>
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" <nshaf@intur.net> > 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
--
Cliff Click Compiler Designer and Researcher
cliffc at acm.org 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.