On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:35:21AM +0300, megane wrote: > Peter Bex <[email protected]> writes: > > Ah, so this effectively means some of the rewrites are useless since the > > specializations make them inapplicable. We should consider what to do > > with that. I have no clue what would happen if we change the order in > > which they run, so maybe just remove rewrite 19 and replace it with your > > suggestion? > > In this case I would just move rewrite 19 to happen before scrutiny.
I don't think we can selectively move particular rewrites before scrutiny, that's what I was getting at; scrutiny is just one big operation that runs once, and optimizations happen in a loop. > In general, some optimizations like rewrite 19 help the scrutinizer. The > scrutinizer makes transformations that might enable some optimizations, > which might help the scrutinizer, ... i.e. "cascading optimizations". Yeah, it would be great to make use of that. > The optimizer seems to do this kind of looping. The scrutinizer just > isn't part of that (and probably can't be as the optimizer works with > CPS IIUC). That's what I mean. So I think (for now at least?) we're "stuck" with doing it like you suggested, but then the rewrite is unnecessary (for the most part?). Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
