Re: Push GENERIC farther into C/C++ front ends.

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:29:58PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I'm OK with this change -- but I want to make sure that we don't try to 
> generate GENERIC stuff too early.  I think it should be a fundamental 
> design goal that we first generate a representation that is unlowered 
> C++, and then transform to GENERIC.

Please define "unlowered C++".

I certainly *do* intend to emit LABEL_EXPR instead of LABEL_STMT,
and so forth for all such codes that have exact or near-exact
analoges in GENERIC.

I *already* represent cleanups more like TRY_FINALLY_EXPRs than
the old loosely specified CLEANUP_STMTs.  (Note that CLEANUP_STMT
still exists, but has changed meaning.)  I *already* don't fill 
in FOR_INIT_STMT, as it's easier to get cleanups built correctly
if the init statement is placed before the loop to begin with.

And even before my change we lowered statements with respect to
their implicit scopes.

Basically, your admonition lacks any sort of guidelines for what
sorts of changes you do or do not consider acceptable.


r~