This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I looked into some of this in the past too, but I was not so adventurous as Dan to actually try doing the hard work. The main reason was that it is just impossible to determine beforehand how trees are to be split up, i.e. it is impossible to do the design of "new tree" up front. Was this not also one of the reasons why Zack&Nathan's static trees idea never really took off?
I suppose you do not want to discourage Dan now by asking the impossible.
Assuming Dan continues his work, having e.g. GIMPLE_DECL for temporaries (without the many unused fields they have now) would be a Big Win.
Wouldn't just documenting a philosophy and posting incremental patches
be good enough? Whatever Dan comes up with can't possibly be any worse
than what 'tree' is now, and isn't the potential for reducing the memory footprint worth the risks you see?
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |