From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:11:07 EST." References: <2c752317a96b7b8b980ad37e92ff6f01@terzarima.net> <20110203021608.006575B67@mail.bitblocks.com> <2c48b8397b29ededd862efa6de0baf70@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20110203174129.C984D5B91@mail.bitblocks.com> From: Bakul Shah Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:33:04 -0800 Message-Id: <20110203183304.648355B91@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9, WAS: Re: RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely Topicbox-Message-UUID: ab1c1062-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:11:07 EST erik quanstrom wrote: > > I agree with their goal but not its execution. I think a > > toolkit for manipulating graph based program representations > > to build optimizing compilers is a great idea but did they > > do it in C++? > > are you sure that the problem isn't the graph representation? > gcc also takes a graph-based approach. What problem? All programs are graphs in any case. Optimizations in effect replace one subgraph with another that has better properties. Global optimizers need to keep many more graphs in memory. But you can take short cuts when not optimizing -- if you know a graph is not going to change under you, you can generate code incrementally and may not even need to keep all subgraphs in memory.