Author: Hakan Ardo <[email protected]>
Branch: extradoc
Changeset: r3716:fa890ec5df5e
Date: 2011-06-16 19:59 +0200
http://bitbucket.org/pypy/extradoc/changeset/fa890ec5df5e/
Log: always optimize original trace
diff --git a/talk/iwtc11/paper.tex b/talk/iwtc11/paper.tex
--- a/talk/iwtc11/paper.tex
+++ b/talk/iwtc11/paper.tex
@@ -683,7 +683,9 @@
$L_1$($p_{0}$, $p_{5}$, $i_3$, $i_4$):
# inside f: y = y.add(step)
+guard_class($p_{5}$, BoxedInteger)
# inside BoxedInteger.add
+ guard_class($p_{0}$, BoxedInteger)
# inside BoxedInteger.add__int
$i_{8}$ = $i_{4}+i_{3}$
$p_{9}$ = new(BoxedInteger)
@@ -694,7 +696,7 @@
Note how the loop invaraint \lstinline{get} on $p_0$ was moved out of
the loop, and how the non loop invariant \lstinline{get} on $p_5$ was
-removed entierly.
+removed entierly.
\subsection{Common Subexpression Elimination}
If a pure operation appears more than once in the trace with same input
@@ -920,15 +922,13 @@
used unchanged. The only interaction needed between the loop peeling
and the other
optimizations is during the constructing of the jump arguments
-connecting the peeled of iteration (the preamble) with the loop body. This
+connecting the peeled of iteration (the preamble) with the peeled loop. This
approach
improves the effect of standard optimizations such as redundant guard removal,
heap
caching, common subexpression elimination and allocation removals. The
most prominent effect is that they all become loop
invariant code motion optimizations.
-XXX: is ``loop body'' or ``peeled loop'' the preferable term?
-
By using several benchmarks we show that the proposed algorithm can
significantly
improve the run time of small loops containing numerical
_______________________________________________
pypy-commit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-commit
