At 10:28 AM 10/26/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> >
> > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer
At 08:32 AM 10/26/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># More importantly, the answer to the preceeding question can be "Yes".
>
>So why don't we wait until we decide we don't have enough opcodes?
>Smells like premature optimization to me.
Note the answer was "can be", not "will be"...
Brian Wheeler:
# I've got a dumb question, and its probably because I've not
# been paying
# attention, so I apologise in advance.
#
# How does a program access more than 32 variables simultaneously? In
# real CPU architectures you've got main memory storage, but
# here we only
# have registers.
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
# >On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to
# my optimizer (or
# >
Sam Tregar:
# On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my
# optimizer (or
# > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
#
# Actually,
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do c
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
Actually, a really lazy compiler will
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 01:32, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
> >
> > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> > method "forgot" the last variant,
At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
You don't have to
Tom Hughes:
# In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#
# > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
# >
# > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are
# handled. The old
# > method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
# > gen
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
>
> This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
> generate:
> thing(i,i,i)
> thin
Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
generate:
thing(i,i,i)
thing(i,i,ic)
thing(i,ic,i)
but not
thing(i,ic,ic)
The new one does.
Brian
13 matches
Mail list logo
