Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:06:20 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unused functions Message-ID: <19980915120620.32623@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199809141806.LAA18220@usr05.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 06:06:24PM %2B0000 References: <199809140114.SAA08497@word.smith.net.au> <199809141806.LAA18220@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Moved to -chat] On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 06:06:24PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: [... on dead code elimination at the final code level ...] > > It allows the programmer and the C scoping rules to > > work together to determine what should be associated and what need not. > > Instead of the compiler merely calculating hamiltonian cycles in > the dependency graph to do dead code elimination. I don't get what Hamilton cycles has to do with this. It looks like a simple mark-and-sweep GC to me, and I can't see how looking for Hamilton cycles are going to find. Also, I can't think of a single case where I have written code that is likely to have even a single Hamilton cycle - I usually don't call main() from elsewhere in my program (and I certainly don't call _start). If you can involve Hamilton cycles at all here, it sounds like it must be on a subgraph. How? For those following: A Hamilton cycle touch every node in the graph exactly once, and forms a cycle. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980915120620.32623>