[M3devel] m3_build vs. build in parse.c?

[Tony Hosking]

Not sure if it break anything or not, but no good reason I know of.

Antony Hosking | Associate Professor | Computer Science | Purdue University
305 N. University Street | West Lafayette | IN 47907 | USA
Office +1 765 494 6001 | Mobile +1 765 427 5484




On 9 Mar 2010, at 00:09, Jay K wrote:

> 
> I understand why use m3_build instead of build.
> But why ever use build? Just when m3_build has
> no chance of optimizing? Or an oversight?
> 
> - Jay
> 
> ________________________________
>> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>> To: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
>> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
>> Subject: RE: [M3commit] m3_build vs. build in parse.c?
>> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:46:06 +0000
>> 
>> 
>> Why not always call m3_build?
>> 
>> Why ever call build?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Jay
>> 
>>> From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
>>> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:58:30 -0500
>>> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>>> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
>>> Subject: Re: [M3commit] m3_build vs. build in parse.c?
>>> 
>>> So that we can avoid having to analyse all the constants ourselves. We can simply generate the trees and then have gcc fold them.
>>> 
>>> On 4 Mar 2010, at 02:16, Jay K wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why use one vs. the other?
>>>> It appears that they are equivalent *except* that m3_build attempts to optimize,
>>>> but falls back to build if it can't.
>>>> 
>>>> That is, m3_build calls fold_build.
>>>> 
>>>> - Jay
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 		 	   		  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20100309/8cc08cc6/attachment-0002.html>