"Documentation by paper"

[Jamie Lokier]

law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <20040209175301.GB3455@mail.shareable.org>, Jamie Lokier writes:
>  >Granted, but papers do refer to them as "minimal SSA" et al., and the
>  >properties are relevant to algorithms.  Without being 100% certain
>  >from memory, I recall some algorithms require some of the "useless"
>  >PHI nodes to be present.
> The claims were that some algorithms may be able to do a better job at
> optimizing when those useless PHIs were present.  I believe Daniel showed
> some evidence that refuted those claims.

Now I'm really confused.  I don't recall which paper I read that an
algorithm (described in the paper) required certain extra PHI nodes,
i.e. a certain non-minimal requirement, but how can you assume it had
anything at all to do with performance claims in a different paper
that you read?

As I recall the extra PHI nodes were for correctness of a particular
algorithm, not performance.  In other words, additional structure
beyond SSA.  I could be 100% mistaken, because it was many years ago,
but your bizarre leap of logic here is still bizarre :/

-- Jamie