Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of Inlining


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Mar 25, 2009 4:27:21 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
claus
Comment:

add expressiveness of RULES issue

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Inlining

    v3 v4  
    112112== Open Issues == 
    113113 
     114 - there is quite a bit of performance to be gained from simple `PEEL/UNROLL`, followed by existing optimizations, but rewrite `RULES` appear insufficiently expressive to handle many of the optimizing transformations involving loops (starting from reassociating the nested expressions arising from unfolding, as indicated in the examples and the `optimization and rewrite rules questions` thread referenced below; but that extends further, eg, one might prefer to express fixpoint fusion of two composed fixpoints (needs `RULES` matching over `case`) without having to write the fixpoints in stream form, or one might want to fuse operations from the end of a loop body with complementary operations from the beginning of the next iteration (TODO: could that be hacked around?)) 
     115 
    114116 - how to handle programs using implicit recursions (via combinators)? One could `PEEL/UNROLL` the definitions of said combinators, but that would give no control at the call sites (like a single setting for all loops). One possibility is to allow `INLINE PEEL/UNROLL` at the call sites, interpreted as making and unfolding __copies__ of the combinator definitions? 
    115117