Oh, and thanks a lot for reviewing the CPS stuff! I really appreciate it, and I think it will make the end result a lot better than whatever I could do on my own.
Noah On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > > Yes, I completely agree with this. I didn't do that immediately because > I'm trying to get the infrastructure for the general case working. I plan > to implement un-boxing in CPS. The real reason not to do it yet is that the > tree-il-CPS compiler can't compile any examples that would actually need > boxes. (But it will be able to soon!) > > Noah > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > >> Hi Noah, >> >> "Noah Lavine" <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: >> > commit 0d0808ae3f7390ffb250b9deb6706ad4158cce0e >> > Author: Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> >> > Date: Mon Feb 18 14:10:58 2013 -0500 >> > >> > Make Lambda Arguments Mutable >> > >> > * module/language/cps.scm: let variable objects come with an >> > initialization value. >> > * module/language/tree-il/compile-cps.scm: put all lambda arguments >> in >> > variable boxes, so they are mutable. >> >> Lambda arguments (and all other lexical variables) should only be put >> into boxes if they are 'set!' somewhere within their lexical scope. >> This can always be determined at compile time. It is crucial that we >> minimize the number of mutable variables, since they inhibit most >> optimizations. >> >> The required analysis is already implemented in tree-il/analyze.scm. >> >> Regards, >> Mark >> > >
