Re: GSoC proposal: partial redundancy elimination

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Ben Darwin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've posted a new version at the same location
> (https://gist.github.com/bcdarwin/94d9dbb34e4d1c47b40f). If you have
> more suggestions, let me know.
>

I don't have much more to add.  I like the idea of a blog; I'm a strong
proponent of quality-code over quantity-of-code, so it is nice to have some
other means of documenting progress.  I don't think there will be any major
complications with supporting tuples and datatypes --- they are handled
quite easily by our common-subexpression (which is nearly a
value-numbering) optimization.  On the other hand, overflow-checking
arithmetic is a little more difficult to handle, so might be something to
put as a later extension.  Consider:
  ((x + y) handle Overflow => 0) + ((y + x) handle Overflow => 1)
The (x+y) and the (y+x) must evaluate to the same result, but that result
is either an integer or a raised Overflow exception; hence, the right hand
side of the outer + is redundant with the left hand side, but its more
subtle than if there were no overflow arithmetic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2

_______________________________________________
MLton-devel mailing list
[email protected]; [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel