<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Vivek,</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:43 AM, vivek pandya <<a href="mailto:vivekvpandya@gmail.com" class="">vivekvpandya@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hello Quentin,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at <a href="http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507" class="">http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507</a></div><div class="">IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that approach with yours I did not understand much of your work :-( in comparison to original paper but I feel that current approach is not generating same results as data flow analysis based approach.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>That’s not surprising that you do not get the implementation in comparison of the original paper, the goal is the same but the approaches are completely different.</div><div>Fred’s approach is data flow based, that one is dominance based.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""> Also I do not understand one of your comment on review :</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><ol class="" style="margin: 12px 0px 12px 30px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style-position: initial; font-family: 'Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web Regular', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><li class="" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px">Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, </li></ol></blockquote><div class=""><font face="Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web Regular, Segoe UI Symbol, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">Do you here meant to get more effective results as original paper?</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>No, I mean to improve the current approach, we would need to support several save and restore insertion points. The original paper already supports that, but so far, we did not find compelling reason to add this (complex) support.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><font face="Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web Regular, Segoe UI Symbol, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""> With IPRA should we go for more aggressive version or the current version is as capable as original paper ?</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>The current version is not as capable as the original paper in terms of the granularity we have for the placement of save and restore points, but it is much faster.</div><div>Anyhow, shrink-wrapping and the scope of the current IPRA are orthogonal. Put differently, improving our shrink-wrapping implementation is a different topic.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>-Quentin</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font face="Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web Regular, Segoe UI Symbol, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">Sincerely,</font></div><div class=""><font face="Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web Regular, Segoe UI Symbol, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">Vivek</font></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>