Check out my first novel, midnight's simulacra!
Compiler Design: Difference between revisions
From dankwiki
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Dataflow Analysis== | ==Dataflow Analysis== | ||
If a statement S writes to a variable V, S is said to ''define'' V. If statement S reads from a variable V, S is said to ''use'' V (the two are not mutually exclusive). A definition of v is killed between p1 and p2 if every path between them contains a definition of v; conversely, if a path exists from p1 to p2 which does not redefine v, and v has been defined on input to p1, it ''reaches'' p2 from p1. | If a statement S writes to a variable V, S is said to ''define'' V. If statement S reads from a variable V, S is said to ''use'' V (the two are not mutually exclusive). A definition of v is killed between p1 and p2 if every path between them contains a definition of v; conversely, if a path exists from p1 to p2 which does not redefine v, and v has been defined on input to p1, it ''reaches'' p2 from p1. | ||
==Dependency Analysis== | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/10/computing_strongly_connected_c.php Computing Strongly Connected Subgraphs] from [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath Good Math, Bad Math] | * [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/10/computing_strongly_connected_c.php Computing Strongly Connected Subgraphs] from [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath Good Math, Bad Math] | ||
* "[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=255129.255158 On the perfect accuracy of an approximate subscript analysis test]" (Klappholz, Psarris, Kong, 1990) analyzes the GCD and Banerjee inequalities, explaining the crappiness of the former and general robustness of the latter. "[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=110518.110525&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618 On the Accuracy of the Banerjee Test]" (same authors, 1991) suggests improvements on the Banerjee test. | |||
