| Related articles |
|---|
| Re: loops preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-02-25) |
| Re: loops mwolfe@ogicse.ogi.edu (1992-02-26) |
| Re: loops wall@pa.dec.com (1992-02-26) |
| Re: loops clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (1992-02-28) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | wall@pa.dec.com (David Wall) |
| Keywords: | optimize |
| Organization: | DEC Palo Alto |
| References: | <9202220021.AA28153@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 92-02-113 |
| Date: | Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:11:25 GMT |
Preston Briggs asks whether we should treat
do {
do {
<A>
} while ()
} while ()
as one loop or a nested pair.
Though intuition suggests that it is a pair, there is at least one
reason to treat it as one loop. Something like
while () {
switch () {
case foo:
...; break;
case bar:
...; break;
case baz:
...; break;
}
is otherwise very easy to mislabel as a triply-nested loop, if we
have already optimized the breaks into jumps back to the header.
When you run into a 100-ply switch statement that your compiler
calls a 100-deep nested loop, it really sticks with you, believe
me. Your hair -never- grows back.
David W. Wall - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wall@decwrl.dec.com
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.