This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: List of simplifications we should perform

On May 11, 2001, Tom Tromey <> wrote:

>>>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <> writes:
Kaveh> I think most of these are already done in fold-const.c on
Kaveh> trees.  How much benefit is there in redoing all the opts on
Kaveh> RTL?  (Just curious, I'm sure there is some benefit.)

> I think it would be interesting if these things could be defined via
> some kind of lisp-like language working at the tree level (which is
> what, in my naivete, I imagine the RTL plan would amount to).

In a perfect world, a define_simplify would generate code that could
simplify trees and rtl.

> Java has fairly strict rules about what can, cannot, and must be
> folded.

Just like define_insn, define_simplify could have conditions, and
these could include tests about which language is being compiled.

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{,}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{,}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]