Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term the plan is to introduce a link-time
On 09.04.2012 5:11, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Dmitry Olshanskydmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jlsmka$22ce$1...@digitalmars.com...
The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all of
suffixes. I will define
On 04/09/12 08:21, Somedude wrote:
Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 08:21:08AM +0200, Somedude wrote:
Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.1518.1333937643.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Why is it so important to have unique addresses for functions?
Just because I can't think of a use case doesn't mean nobody is relying on
it!
But I guess there really isn't
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:58:01PM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.1518.1333937643.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Why is it so important to have unique addresses for functions?
Just because I can't think of a use case
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term the plan is to introduce a link-time flavored
optimization at code generation or (better) link step.
For simplicity let's assume compiler does
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:01:56 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term the plan is to introduce a link-time flavored
optimization
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term the plan is to introduce a link-time flavored
optimization at code generation
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only then (if
required) doing a straight memcmp. If it happens that there is a match
compiler just throws
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only then (if
required) doing a straight memcmp. If it happens that
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the
duplicate table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only
then (if required)
Am Sun, 8 Apr 2012 07:18:26 -0700
schrieb H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx:
We'd have to make sure the checksum doesn't end up in the final
executable though, otherwise the bloat may negate any gains we've made.
Executables (and object files) are made up mostly of sections, some of which
are
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:21:14 +0200
schrieb Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the
duplicate table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only
then (if required) doing
On 4/8/12 10:59 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching
On 08.04.2012 19:59, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by
On 08.04.2012 18:18, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
1. Every time a function is generated (or pretty much any symbol)
not only a size calculated but also a checksum* of it's data.
(If we go for link-time optimization we should find a place to stick
it to in the object file)
We'd have to make sure
On 08.04.2012 16:37, Marco Leise wrote:
[snip]
Template bloat could be especially important to 'fix' on embedded systems.
I think I this idea largely formed years ago when I was working with c++
on 8bit micros. You won't believe the amount of code size one can save
by using one separate
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 08:45:19PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:18, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
We'd have to make sure the checksum doesn't end up in the final
executable though, otherwise the bloat may negate any gains we've
made.
Easy the symbol size is in object file
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:58:15 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com:
On 08.04.2012 16:37, Marco Leise wrote:
[snip]
Template bloat could be especially important to 'fix' on embedded systems.
I think I this idea largely formed years ago when I was working with c++
on 8bit
On 08.04.2012 21:24, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. This would be a very big gain for
the new AA implementation, for example. I wouldn't have to worry so much
about template bloat if most of the instantiations are going to get
merged anyway. :-)
Right the advantage is
On 4/8/12 1:49 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
P.S. Damn, I could have done a nice paper on that... too late :)
You may always do.
Andrei
On 4/8/2012 4:01 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler vendors)
does what I think is rather simple optimization.
I worked out how to do it a while ago, but there's been no time to implement it.
(You can't do a memcmp because of all
On 08.04.2012 22:51, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/8/2012 4:01 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
vendors)
does what I think is rather simple optimization.
I worked out how to do it a while ago, but there's been no time to
implement
On 08.04.2012 22:49, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all
of suffixes. I will define _all_ later on.
First observation is that if you calculated partial checksums for
prefixes
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 10:56:43PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 22:51, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
The main difficulty is not being able to modify the linker. So you're
pretty much limited to what the compiler is able to do before
linking. D does allow the compiler to deal with
On 04/08/12 18:14, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/8/12 10:59 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the
Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Note that my point is just that the compiler needs to emit a dummy
so that the addresses remain unique, eg
module.f!uint:
jmp module.f!int
Or use a nop slide before
Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jlsmka$22ce$1...@digitalmars.com...
The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all of
suffixes. I will define _all_ later on.
I think you'll find
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:59:26AM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Note that my point is just that the compiler needs to emit a dummy
so that the addresses remain unique, eg
Am Sun, 8 Apr 2012 19:14:22 -0700
schrieb H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:59:26AM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Note that my point is just
31 matches
Mail list logo
