Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From: n.oje.bar@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: basic question about cps
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 21
Sender: johnl@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <12-11-004@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1352755792 99818 64.57.183.58 (12 Nov 2012 21:29:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:05:49 +0000
Keywords: analysis, question
Posted-Date: 12 Nov 2012 16:29:52 EST
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:775

Hi, I have a basic question about writing a compiler using continuation-passing style
as an intermediate language.

It seems to me that if one performs the cps transformation one is left
with many 'computed' calls (that is call to variables holding
procedure values, namely, the continuation). It seems that compiling
such 'computed' calls would be much slower than compiling 'direct'
calls to known procedures.

Question:

1. Is this assumption valid?
2. If it is, then it seems that cps is not very useful without some
non-trivial control flow analysis...??

Please excuse me if this question is very basic.

Thanks!
Nicolas
[Yes, it assumes a reasonbly good optimizer. -John]