Hi Chris, On 16 August 2017 at 07:33, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have spend some time reading the paper > > http://compilers.cs.uni-saarland.de/papers/bbhlmz13cc.pdf > > "Simple and Efficient SSA Construction". Which is luc's SSA > conversion is based on: > > Here is some random thoughts about the paper I might just > share with you guys. If I make a mistake some where along > the line, I am very glad if some one can point it out to me. > > - I think the main point of the paper doing SSA without > the CFG is not particular useful to us. We need to generate > CFG *anyway*. > > - The "Simple and Efficient" part has obvious limitation on > reducible graph. Once go over the fence of irreducible graph, > the solution is no longer simple nor efficient. For irreducible > graph it do need the CFG. That means the CFG is actuall > unavoidable consider source can have irreducible graph. > I would argue that the simplest possible solution is what we should start with. The solution implemented based on this paper appears to be simple and elegant - and if this works correctly then why go for more complicated solutions? Theoretical scenarios are not very useful - in my view, if the solution works now with all known inputs then it is good enough. > > - Cytron might still be worthwhile to implement due to the better > worse case complexity. > > Certainly you should prototype this - even if just to compare. But I would suggest - lets merge the solution we have now. Additional solutions are always good to have. The great thing about Sparse I find is that it is smaller and simpler than gcc or clang - and I would urge that this should be maintained. Regards Dibyendu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
