contifier bug

[Stephen Weeks]

> I think the immediate form of transformation would be a good way of
> formally presenting the transformation in the paper.  The argument might
> go something like this: given a safe analysis A, construct the analysis
> forest.  Consider a node of this forest where all children are leaves.  Do
> the transformation of contifying all the children at the node (this would
> presumably be where the main work is: what to do to contify in a function
> and at a jump); the resulting program has less functions and A restricted
> to these functions is a safe analysis for the resulting program, so we can
> continue processing the analysis forest.

Since we're using the simple definition of safety (i.e. no A*), isn't the simple
one pass over the program transformation sufficient?  That is, transforming a
toplevel function f introduces at the top of f's body (transformed versions of)
the functions g such that A(g) = f and transforming a continuation k introduces
just after k (transformed versions of) the functions g such that A(g) = k.