Timeline for Whole-program optimization
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2020 at 17:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 24, 2020 at 3:04 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2020 at 17:02 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Jun 19, 2020 at 10:10 | answer | added | Jessie Lesbian | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 10:32 | vote | accept | Lance Pollard | ||
| May 1, 2018 at 6:51 | answer | added | Basile Starynkevitch | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 6:51 | comment | added | Lance Pollard | @DocBrown yes I'm thinking a totally different function but it has the same overall effect. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 6:29 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | The term "whole program optimization" usually means that the optimizer looks beyond the scope of a single source/object file for performing the optimizations. Which optimizations are performed is not that different. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 6:27 | comment | added | Doc Brown | Replacing a function f1 by another function f2 can only work if the optimizer knows f1 and f2 are semantically equivalent. This may be detected automatically if f1 and f2 are essentially containing the same instructions, or at least equivalent instructions. But in this case, I fail to see the point of this "whole program" optimization approach, f2 is just a (locally) optimized version of f1. Or do you think of a case where f2 contains a completely different algorithm than f1, but still has the same semantics, the same side effects etc? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 5:29 | history | edited | Lance Pollard | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 355 characters in body |
| May 1, 2018 at 5:22 | history | asked | Lance Pollard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |