On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 10:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > set N0, 3.14 > set N0, 3.14 > set N0, 3.14
> I don't understand how d and e both become N0, nor how both f and g become > S0. a, b, and c all seem to get their own registers. Is there some > optimization going on here since in both cases (num and str), the assigns > are from the same constant table location? Is imcc smart enough to realize > that the above transformation doesn't change the semantics of my program, > or is it perhaps a bug? Looks like the first stages of constant-folding to me, no? Presumably if d and e were set to different values or had unpredictable side effects acting on them, this would not happen. The constant folding may simply not deal with integers yet.... -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
