On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 06:18:25AM +0100, Tassilo von Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:21:51AM -0800 Larry Wall wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:33:27AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > : On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:34:13PM +0000, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > : > That sounds really messy. I'd much prefer it if the code got split > > cleanly > > : > into multiple functions. I'm not sure if that's 2 > > : > > > : > 1: True optimisations > > : > 2: fixups and strict > > : > > : IIRC, some, or perhaps all, of the fixups really belong in ck_ routines > > : (but those ops don't have one yet). > > > > In general, the fixups done in peep() aren't going to be possible in ck_ > > routines. (Of if possible, not nearly so easy.) You have to realize that > > Perl's compiler is essentially a 3-pass compiler with interleaved phases: > > [...] > > The above explains why any of my attempts to move stuff from Perl_peep > into ck_ routines produced so mediocre results. The reason why I > remained so quiet for a while was that I found my failures rather > embarrassing and didn't want to admit them in public. ;-)
Sorry to have given you a bum steer; I know I had seen at least a couple things that should have been in ck_ routines, but can't remember exactly where. At ck_ time, you only have as much of the optree as is under the op it's working on.
