Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!bu-cs!xylogics!merk!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Compilers and RISC (was: '040 vs. SPARC)
Message-ID: <1990Feb10.035345.1204@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 10 Feb 90 03:53:45 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP> <38415@apple.Apple.COM> <2101@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <19233@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <1990Feb9.161153.4190@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 22
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us

Moss@cs.umass.edu writes:
>[`Global' (procedural) vs. interprocedural optimizations]

Er, a big bite of mine for a long time.
Can we change the terminology, please?

* Local optimization: within a basic block.
* Procedural optimization: over the whole procedure.
* Interprocedural: obvious.
* Global optimziation: whole program.
* Interdomain: among programs.

Well, I just had to get it off my chest.

	;-D on  ( Soul of a new speak )  Pardo
-- 
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{spdcc | ima | lotus}!esegue.  Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.
Please send responses to the author of the message, not the poster.