On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 01:12 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Joe Buck wrote: > > The problem with using time as a cutoff is that you then get results that > > can't be reproduced reliably. Better to count something that is a feature > > of the algorithm, e.g. number of executions of some inner loop, number of > > nodes visited, or the like, > > On the other hand, it is not based on such features that you'll be > able to provide a watermark on time and space... Having guarantees on > compile time and space is probably what some users will want instead > of yet another bunch of --param max-foo-nodes.
Sebastian, I really think you are worrying too much. It's pretty rare that it will take going all the way to omega to be able to disambiguate two dependences.
