From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB365BC88 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:20:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j18IKlTU022306 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:20:47 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00911 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:20:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (mercure.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.67]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j18IKjj5024966 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:20:46 +0100 Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F488282CA; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from asado.iro.umontreal.ca (asado.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.84]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BE24AC1B3; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by asado.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0E8D54BCC6; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:20:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: paralell assignment problem References: <1107832025.13571.260.camel@pelican.wigram> <87y8dzi0ns.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria@gnu.org> <1107878522.5022.78.camel@pelican.wigram> From: Stefan Monnier Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:20:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1107878522.5022.78.camel@pelican.wigram> (skaller@users.sourceforge.net's message of "09 Feb 2005 03:02:02 +1100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-4.784, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.12, BAYES_00 -4.90) X-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 420902FF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 420902FE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 umontreal:01 compilers:01 recursive:01 ...:98 graph:01 tail:01 functions:01 algorithm:01 algorithm:01 generally:03 problem:05 problem:05 quite:06 components:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: >> Most ML compilers do this sort of thing to break big blocks of mutually >> recursive functions into smaller such blocks. The algorithm used is >> generally to extract the "strongly connected components" of the graph. >> Google for it and you'll surely find an algorithm. > I'm not sure the problem is quite the same though. > Call graphs are transitive: if A calls B, and B calls C, > then A calls C. Right, but the SCC will do the tail/head part of your algorithm in an "optimal" way, and the strongly connected components can then be cracked open by adding the t = ex ... x = t thingy. Stefan