Thanks for pointing this out.  I tracked the bug down, and it looks
like the dominator algorithm does not handle unreachable blocks
correctly, and the dominance frontier algorithm suffers for it.  Why
the unreachable blocks are generated in the first place might be an
interesting question for someone working on PGE.

I'll work on the dominator bug before applying the DF patch.
-Curtis

On 7/28/05, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The eval tests are failing with a pristine checkout so we can ignore
> those. Applying your patch to a pristine build yields only the
> backtrack.t failure: #2 eats 100% of the CPU until I kill it: it
> doesn't behave that way in svn-head.
> 
> Looks like PerlString and String were red herrings. Should track down
> why p6rules is misbehaving with your patch, though.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
> 
> > FYI, on OS X 10.4.2, I get:
> >
> > Failed Test           Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > t/p6rules/backtrack.t    1   256    15    1   6.67%  2
> > t/pmc/eval.t             3   768    14    3  21.43%  12-14
> > t/pmc/perlstring.t       1   256    68    1   1.47%  61
> > t/pmc/string.t           1   256    35    1   2.86%  28
> >
> > I have some slight differences from svn-latest which of course
> > "shouldn't affect these tests". =-)
> >
> > On Jul 19, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Curtis Rawls (via RT) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> # New Ticket Created by  Curtis Rawls
> >> # Please include the string:  [perl #36597]
> >> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> >> # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36597 >
> >>
> >>
> >> This patch adds support for "dominance frontiers" in imcc, including:
> >> -Array of Sets for dominance frontiers
> >> -An efficient algorithm described in "A Simple, Fast Dominance
> >> Algorithm", Cooper et al. (2001)
> >> -Free and dump functions
> >>
> >> -Curtis
> >>
> >> <df.patch>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Reply via email to