Browse thread
compiler bug?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] compiler bug? |
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 13:34 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote: > It is my impression that users of compilers are "ready" for the > following situation: > 1) an optimizing compiler (like ocamlopt!) that produces good code > efficiently > 2) a super-optimizing compiler that produces fantastic code, at whatever > cost. > > Such a compiler would probably rapidly find a niche of fervent users. What about high level optimisations? Felix supports this: reduce revrev[t] (x:list[t]): rev (rev x) => x; which, combined with inlining, removes adjacent list reversals. This is a fairly trivial example of integrating logic with programming as a way of achieving both correctness and performance: the reduction above provides both semantic knowledge to the reader as well as allowing the compiler to generate better code. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net