Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: taken -vs- untaken branches, Fo
Message-ID: <28200087@ccvaxa>
Date: 12 Jan 88 16:51:00 GMT
References: <839@ima.ISC.COM>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:ima.ISC.COM:839:ccvaxa:28200087:000:753
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Jan 12 10:51:00 1988


I may have noticed a basic difference in underlying model in the
discussion of FREQUENCY.
    In a subsequent note John Mashey says intuition about where
programs spend there time is poor for small programs, and abysmal
for large programs, and then gives a bc example.
    I agree. I rarely can estimate over more than 10 lines of code.
The point is that the FREQUENCY statement, the way I understand it,
is used for *relative* frequencies, not absolute (if it was absolute
in the original FORTRAN, then I'm greatly against it).
    On a given branch I can usually figure out which is the most likely
alternative, and I'd like to be able to indicate that. But I sure as heck
do not want to have to calculate *absolute* priorities for an entire program.