Tr : Re : Re : Re : Generation of GENERIC tree

[charfi asma <charfiasma at yahoo dot fr>]

Hi,

That means that articles and manuals that I have seen are theories and in practice, any of c/c++/java front ends use GENERIC.

Thank you very much Andrew.



----- Message d'origine ----
De : Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
À : charfi asma <charfiasma@yahoo.fr>
Cc : gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 24 Juin 2009, 14h41mn 47s
Objet : Re: Re : Re : Generation of GENERIC tree

charfi asma wrote:

I wrote:

> charfi asma wrote:
>>    
> 
>> I am interested too in the GENERIC tree
>> I compile hello.cpp using g++
>> -fdump-tree-all, I do not get a generic intermediate representation,
>> there was (.tu, .class, .original, .gimple, .vcg ...)
>> To look at the GENERIC tree, I
>> compile hello.java using gcj (as mentioned in the answer bellow: "I
>> recommend looking at any gcc frontend other than the C/C++ frontends
>> to see how it is done....")
>> But when I compile java file using
>> the same option (fdump-tree-all) I do not get .generic as I expect..
>> Before .gimple, gcj generate only .original
> 
> That's right.  gcj transforms its front-end trees straight into GIMPLE.  I
> can't see any purpose to going via GENERIC.
>
> but gcc manual 2008, gcc internals 2008, many articles and figures in GCC summit 2006, 2007 and 2008 talk about GENERIC ?

They do.

> did C front end call the function c_genericize or not ?

It does.  However, as far as I can tell it converts to GIMPLE, not
GENERIC.  I can't see the point of GENERIC.

Andrew.