Some people call this uninlining. I've also heard the term
procedural abstraction. The generalization is to identify common code
fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
the common code with function calls.
Is this the same as Code Factoring?
Rafael Espíndola wrote:
Some people call this uninlining. I've also heard the term
procedural abstraction. The generalization is to identify common code
fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
the common code with function calls.
Is this the same as Code
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Rafael Espíndola wrote:
Some people call this uninlining. I've also heard the term
procedural abstraction. The generalization is to identify common code
fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the users of
the common code with function calls.
Is
On 7/17/06, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Rafael Espíndola wrote:
Some people call this uninlining. I've also heard the term
procedural abstraction. The generalization is to identify common code
fragments that can be turned into functions. Then, replace the
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00362.html, you wrote:
Are there any ideas on how and where to add a target and language
independent code compaction pass into gcc?
I think first you should be more specific about what you are trying to do.
DO you only want to match essentially identical
Miguel Angel wrote:
Hello!
I have a VERY simple example:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
It could be reduced to:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {return f1 (i);}
Are there any ideas on how and where to add
Hello!
I have a VERY simple example:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
It could be reduced to:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {return f1 (i);}
Are there any ideas on how and where to add a target and language
