ted, so you would be just as well off commenting
out the entire compute_dominance_frontiers call in reg_alloc.c until
it is needed.
> I've cc'd in Curtis Rawls who I believe implemented the routine - Curtis,
> any chance you may have time to have a quick look at this?
I don't see that a
As part of my Summer of Code project, I wanted to improve the
documentation of the optimizer. This was especially relevant for me
since I had to learn it my self by trial and error and asking
questions. So here is my first draft of the optimizer documentation.
I tried to include the most import
I've written a new O1 optimization, branch_reorg(). It does the following:
1. Finds an unconditional jump (ie branch)
2. If its target instruction is not reachable by falling through from
the previous block (ie preceded by an unconditional jump)
3. All instructions from the target ins to the next
Applied (8965).
Patch attached.
On 8/10/05, Curtis Rawls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have attached a patch that fixes this problem.
>
> Description:
> -
> This patch adds a bb_remove_edge() function, and decouples unreachable blocks
> from the CFG by removing their successor edg
, which is an -O1 optimization.
I still don't have commit access, so someone else can apply it now, or
I will apply it once I do, if there are no complaints.
-Curtis
On 7/29/05, Curtis Rawls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. I tracked the bug down, and it lo
for the parrot tree.
> > username: cgrawls
>
> TIA,
> leo
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Curtis Rawls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: July 29, 2005 0:45:56 CEST
> > To: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [perl #36597]
256151 6.67% 2
> > t/pmc/eval.t 3 768143 21.43% 12-14
> > t/pmc/perlstring.t 1 256681 1.47% 61
> > t/pmc/string.t 1 256351 2.86% 28
> >
> > I have some slight differences from svn-latest whi
Can someone apply this? I have another patch ready that depends on this one.
Thanks!
-Curtis
On 7/19/05, via RT Curtis Rawls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Curtis Rawls
> # Please include the string: [perl #36597]
> # in the subject line of all future corre
Apologies, the submitted patch causes some tests to not terminate.
This patch is the correct version.
-Curtis
On 7/21/05, via RT Curtis Rawls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Curtis Rawls
> # Please include the string: [perl #36615]
> # in the subject lin
>From working with the optimizer, I have some questions about the PASM
opcodes, in particular the "inout" opcodes. For example, adding
integer registers is defined by the "add(out INT, in INT, in INT)".
But if one of the input registers is also the output register, it can
be simplified to "add(in
On 7/5/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2005, at 8:50, Curtis Rawls wrote:
>
> >
> > I seem to have come across a bug in the compute_dominators() algorithm
> > with the following PIR:
>
> It's not unlikely that
I seem to have come across a bug in the compute_dominators() algorithm
with the following PIR:
.sub _main
L1:
eq I0, 0, L3
L2:
goto L5
L3:
L4:
L5:
goto L7
L6:
inc I0
L7:
le I0, 0, L6
end
.end
Running with:
$ ./parrot/parrot -d 32 testbug.pir
I get "7 <- 0 1 2 5 7" for the dom
fore it passes off control. So anywhere a function
returns a continuation, it must restore the callee-save registers
before and save them after.
It might also be helpful to take a look at other systems that also
implement continuations:
-Stackless Python (http://www.stackless.com/spcpaper.htm)
-Standard ML (http://www.smlnj.org/doc/features.html)
-Formalizing Implementation Strategies
(http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/danvy00formalizing.html)
-Others (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContinuationImplementation)
-Curtis Rawls
c for existing code.
>
> I'm not a computer scientist nor am I able to follow most of the papers
> regarding various optimization techniques or the needed infrastructure
> to implement it
>
> Anyway, there are folks on our mailing list like Curtis Rawls, who could
> proba
At 10:19 AM +0200 5/31/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Curtis Rawls (via RT) wrote:
>
>>This patch makes improvements to the loop struct.
>
>Thanks, applied - r8219
>
>BTW: would you like to take a look at the register allocator?
>
>It works but consumes enormous amoun
16 matches
Mail list logo
