|
|
@@ -10502,10 +10502,11 @@ generate better code by taking this fact into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The output language of \code{explicate\_control} is \LangCLoop{}
|
|
|
(Figure~\ref{fig:c7-syntax}), which is nearly identical to
|
|
|
-\LangCLam{}. The only syntactic difference is that \code{Call} and
|
|
|
-\code{read} may also appear as statements. The most significant
|
|
|
-difference between \LangCLam{} and \LangCLoop{} is that the
|
|
|
-control-flow graphs of the later may contain cycles.
|
|
|
+\LangCIf{}. The only syntactic difference is that \code{read} may also
|
|
|
+appear as a statement. The most significant difference between the
|
|
|
+programs generated by \code{explicate\_control} in
|
|
|
+Chapter~\ref{ch:Lif} versus \code{explicate\_control} in this chapter
|
|
|
+is that the control-flow graphs of the later may contain cycles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[tp]
|
|
|
\fbox{
|
|
|
@@ -14239,10 +14240,12 @@ include all the caller-saved registers. Recall that the reason for
|
|
|
that is to force variables that are live across a function call to be assigned to callee-saved
|
|
|
registers or to be spilled to the stack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Regarding the set of read locations $R$ the arity field of
|
|
|
+Regarding the set of read locations $R$, the arity field of
|
|
|
\code{TailJmp} and \code{IndirectCallq} determines how many of the
|
|
|
argument-passing registers should be considered as read by those
|
|
|
-instructions.
|
|
|
+instructions. Also, the target field of \code{TailJmp} and
|
|
|
+\code{IndirectCallq} should be included in the set of read locations
|
|
|
+$R$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Build Interference Graph}
|
|
|
\label{sec:build-interference-r4}
|
Jeremy Siek