develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2021

Re: Do we want PL_operator_plugin? [was: Re: Do we want aCXt_CUSTOM?]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Yuki Kimoto
Date:
February 16, 2021 04:44
Subject:
Re: Do we want PL_operator_plugin? [was: Re: Do we want aCXt_CUSTOM?]
Message ID:
CAExogxPXZUxwmxG5akBVH+4xsaB5XrLepRuH0md2vtrSAxvkUw@mail.gmail.com
>It's not a specific proposal. Its just a first step in common compiler
optimisation techniques

I understand that this is one example of the difficulty of introducing
hooks.



2021年2月15日(月) 20:46 Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>:

> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 08:28:00AM +0900, Yuki Kimoto wrote:
> > I want to know the following optimization more.
> >
> > > separate out op
> > > chains into Basic Blocks for better optimisation
>
> It's not a specific proposal. Its just a first step in common compiler
> optimisation techniques (for all languages, not just perl) where a chain
> of opcodes is identified as a "basic block" - a continuous chain of
> execution that can't be entered into or exited from apart from at the
> start and end. So for example the A;B;C and X;Y; are basic blocks in this:
>     if (COND) { A;B;C; } else { X;Y; }
> while the whole if statement isn't a basic block.
>
> Many optimisations can be performed only or better on basic blocks.
>
> I have no plans to introduce basic block detection into the perl
> internals, nor to do anything with them. I mentioned them just as an
> example of how hooks can potentially get in the way of people wanting to
> do new stuff.
>
>
> --
> "You're so sadly neglected, and often ignored.
> A poor second to Belgium, When going abroad."
>     -- Monty Python, "Finland"
>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About