[m-rev.] for review: inter-module analysis framework

[Simon Taylor]

On 09-Aug-2002, Nancy Mazur <Nancy.Mazur at cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
> And now a totally different consideration. With your remark of simply
> putting my list of headvars in the call-pattern, I started to wonder why
> you make the distinction between call and success pattern in the
> analysis results. A priori the call and success pattern is simply some
> part of the analysis result of some predicate.

I've thought about this a bit, and I think it's better to keep the
call and answer separate. Repeatedly compiling modules can improve
the answer part of a call-answer pair, but it can't change the call
part without a new request being made.

> Also, analyses may produce information that is call pattern independent? 

The unused argument analysis is an example of this -- the call
pattern type is equivalent to std_util__unit.

Simon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------