Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:24 AM -0700 10/21/04, Jeff Clites wrote: I think there'll be two types of tie--tied variables (like Perl has already), and tied namespaces (as supposedly some people really need, though I don't fully know why). But even without the above pathological case: with tied namespaces, a namespace

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-21 Thread Jeff Clites
On Oct 21, 2004, at 4:13 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Oct 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote: And of course, lexicals and globals already have a storage, you don't need to spill them. I'm not sure that's true. It should read: if there are lexical

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-21 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> And of course, lexicals and globals already have a storage, you don't >> need to spill them. > I'm not sure that's true. It should read: if there are lexical or global opcodes, lexicals and globals h

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-21 Thread Jeff Clites
On Oct 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And of course, lexicals and globals already have a storage, you don't need to spill them. I'm not sure that's true. If there's no 'eval' in scope, lexicals don't have to live in pads--they could purely ex

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leo, > Thanks for your suggestions and comments. Welcome and thanks to you for looking at that nasty piece of code ;) > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:35:04 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Some remargs WRT gen{3,4}.pl: >> 1) While these prog

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-20 Thread Bill Coffman
Leo, Thanks for your suggestions and comments. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:35:04 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some remargs WRT gen{3,4}.pl: > 1) While these programs exhibit some worst case register layout it's >probably not a very typical layout. Agreed. The idea was to a

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am currently working on a fix to the large subroutine register > allocation bug, aka, "massive spilling not yet implemented". The > problem, is that the register allocation code is complex, and I'm not > all that familiar with it, or even with working w

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-19 Thread Bill Coffman
Hello All, This is my first post to the parrot list, but I hope that many will follow. Thanks to all of you for working so dilligently on building this wonderful new toy for all us geeks to play with! I am currently working on a fix to the large subroutine register allocation bug, aka, "massive

Re: Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 4:58 PM -0700 10/2/04, Gregor N. Purdy wrote: Dan et al. -- I made a new version of the script that creates gen.cpp and gen.imc (attached). You can run it like this: perl gen-pra.pl 1000 1 (for 1000 labels and 1 variables) and it will create equivalent gen.imc and gen.cpp files. You ca

Pathological Register Allocation Test Generator

2004-10-02 Thread Gregor N. Purdy
Dan et al. -- I made a new version of the script that creates gen.cpp and gen.imc (attached). You can run it like this: perl gen-pra.pl 1000 1 (for 1000 labels and 1 variables) and it will create equivalent gen.imc and gen.cpp files. You can test-compile them with these commands: g++ -