Re: SIMPLE: A language-independent tree IR

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> My point is that RTL is general enough that we don't need yet another
> notation for a canonical 3-address representation.  RTL got that, we
> just need to set the rules and conventions for it to behave however we
> want.  If SIMPLE is what we're aiming at, let's figure out how to
> represent it in RTL.  I don't see the point of creating yet another
> set of data structures, management functions, etc.  It's a waste of
> work.
> 
Ah, now I understand.  We will *not* be creating any new data
structures.  This is all done on trees.  SIMPLE is just a grammar
that specifies how the tree nodes get combined.

In fact, I don't think we will even need to change the tree->RTL
conversion because the C expanders will most probably be able to
handle li-trees.

I also don't foresee any changes to the tree SSA code.  I will be
committing to the AST branch the code that simplifies C trees in
the next few days.


Diego.