Using a DFA for insn-recog.c
Richard Sandiford
rsandifo@nildram.co.uk
Wed May 7 18:22:00 GMT 2008
Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@nildram.co.uk> writes:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>> Also, based on the preface to your email above, I'm guessing that this
>> patch might be providing leverage for some other improvement? Perhaps
>> that this paves the way for a future byte-coded implementation that will
>> deliver faster compile times? Or, do you think that the text size
>> improvements alone justify this patch? (I'm not saying they do not;
>> just asking.)
>
> No, you're right.
Er, sorry for the ambiguousness. What I meant here, and what I meant
when I said "the reasons you give" later, was that the justifications
for the patch were:
- smaller text sizes
- fewer predicate tests and shorter paths through the generated functions
- paves the way for a byte-coded DFA implementation
Richard
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list