Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!hsdndev!spdcc!iecc!compilers-sender From: htf@castle.ed.ac.uk (H T Fallside) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Squashing C Source Keywords: optimize Message-ID: <7611@castle.ed.ac.uk> Date: 17 Dec 90 15:51:22 GMT References: <10767.9012051639@subnode.sari.ed.ac.uk> <14662@goofy.megatest.UUCP> Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Reply-To: H T Fallside Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service Lines: 30 Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us In article <14662@goofy.megatest.UUCP> megatest!djones@decwrl.dec.com (Dave Jones) writes: First thanks to those people writing to tell me about Jack Davidson's and Ann Holler's inliner (see 1254) which sounds like being just the thing I need. >Now then, please tell us why in the world you would want to make an entire >program into one procedure. I'm looking at doing some silicon compilation on dsp algorithms written in C. It's much easier to analyse the allocation requirements, loop nesting depth and any parallelism when the code is non-procedural. I'm not concerned at this stage about size or speed issues on host machines just whether the code remains compilable after i've been playing around with it :-) >I will leave you with one last word: "recursion". I was under the impression that any recursive procedure could be exchanged for an iterative one (and vice versa) am i wrong ? thanks again hamish ---------- htf@uk.ac.ed.castle [It's true, recursion and iteration are equivalent, but the translation can be ugly, particularly in the presence of things like indirect recursion via function pointers. -John] -- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request.