This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
dberlin@dberlin.org (Daniel Berlin) wrote on 09.02.04 in <67F3F3F9-5B2D-11D8-ABD3-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>:
> On Feb 9, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >> This is theoretical.
> >> I provided some data that showed at least one algorithm that claimed
> >> they wanted "useless" phi nodes to be present worked slightly better
> >> without them.
> >
> > Well surely it is part of the specification of the *implementation*
> > whether these "useless" nodes are supposed to be present or not.
> No, and you've missed my point.
> The paper on the exact algorithm we implement claims they help.
> With an implementation implemented *EXACTLY* according to this
> algorithm, they do not help.
> That is all.
> It has nothing to do with an implementation difference.
I smell a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.
Or in other words, it's you who didn't get the point. This thread is NOT
about what a specific optimizer wants to see wrt. PHI nodes, it is about
DOCUMENTING things like what this optimizer wants to see, whatever that
happens to be. Don't confuse an example for an argument with the argument
itself.
Now if you had said "sure, and that's why file XXX says this", *that*
would have been relevant.
MfG Kai