Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Help me, why do we need dfa :)?
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is definitely
needed. Otherwise, temps that are needed for just one particular case of
x:=f(x) are being created almost everywhere.
DFA comes from Jonas's advice from one of the first messages:
That's because the compiler only performs a context-insensitive
> escape analysis (i.e., it is as conservative as possible: when you ask
whether the address of a variable is taken, it will give an answer
which is correct/safe regardless of which statements have already been
executed).
To reduce the conservativeness, you have to use DFA and record the
individual state changes (or states) of all variables at all points
where they may be needed.
--------------------
2. DFA is currently disabled for functions with exception frames, which
makes it useless for resolving the issue with automated types
assignments. Any hints how to work around this?
Well, when having exception frames, dfa gets rather useless:
try
a:=1;
b:=c;
d:=e;
...
except/finally
...
end;
when entering the except block, all variables being assigned in the try
block live because from every instruction in the try block a execution
path goes to the except/finally block.
If I understand right, it means that except block cannot be optimized,
but inside the 'try' part normal rules still apply? E.g. in "a:=1" line,
we know that "d" is not assigned yet?
If a variable is not referenced within except block, it may be treated
as if except block does not exist?
But turning it on and creating one is no real problem, it only pretty
useless ;)
Sergei
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
