[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: gls@livia.East.Sun.COM*Subject*: Re: mathematical models*From*: Guillermo J. Rozas <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>*Date*: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 18:28:17 -0400*Cc*: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org, rrrs-authors@martigny.ai.mit.edu, hbaker@netcom.com, jgm@cs.cornell.edu, shriram@cs.rice.edu, ramsdell@linus.mitre.org*In-Reply-To*: <libSDtMail.9706061429.29124.gls@livia/livia> (message from GuySteele - Sun Microsystems Labs on Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:29:02 -0400(EDT))*Reply-To*: gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu

| Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:29:02 -0400 (EDT) | From: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <gls@livia.East.Sun.COM> | Subject: Re: mathematical models | | Because the overall number of choices of evaluation orders for all | procedure calls in the compiler is finite, it must be the case that | if the compiler compiles the compiler source code, and the resulting | compiler is used to compile the same compiler source code, and so on, | eventually you must fall into a loop. | | My question is, what was the length of the loop? If I recall correctly, we did not determine that -- I don't think that we let it go far enough. However, the few instances that we examined were correct "permutations" of each other, so yes, it should have cycled eventually, but I seem to recall that the number of actual choices was non negligible. It is conceivable that it would eventually have settled into a cycle of length 1, but we never found out -- I guess we weren't curious enough (besides the fact that at the time recompiling the whole system took considerable time). Chris may remember better than I do.

**Follow-Ups**:**mathematical models***From:*cph@martigny.ai.mit.edu (Chris Hanson)

**References**:**Re: mathematical models***From:*Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <gls@livia.East.Sun.COM>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: mathematical models** - Next by Date:
**mathematical models** - Prev by thread:
**Re: mathematical models** - Next by thread:
**mathematical models** - Index(es):