In message <
14891.53456.640808.157582@eponym.epr.com>, "Stephen Weeks" writes:
>
> > Also, the "call-based" analysis that you describe is essentially the same
> > one that we use to cluster functions in the frame phase.
>
> Makes sense. I'd be interested to hear why you don't just CPS the whole
> program. We've found no disadvantages to having a (first-order, stack based)
> CPS IL. But that can certainly wait for another day.
I have three reasons for trying a direct style approach:
1) the IR more closely resembles the source, which makes many things easier.
2) direct-style is a bit more compact.
3) it is something different from what I've worked with before.
>
> Another interesting difference is the fact the MLton does a lot of optimization
> after contification. Maybe Moby doesn't do so because you haven't gotten around
> to it yet. But having more intraprocedural information helps optimization a
> lot.
Lal and I have been talking about developing optimizations for the
post-frame-phase representation. RIght now, Moby's compiler does only
a couple of basic optimizations, so we have a lot of work to do.
- John
(text/plain)