This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Java inliner
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>,Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"java at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:40:21 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Java inliner
- References: <3D07096A.5010102@bothner.com><5620000.1023887664@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell writes:
>
>
> > I believe the right thing to do in the short term is extend the C/C++
> > inliner to understand the Java trees. Almost all of the tree codes
> > encountered will be generic tree codes defined in tree.def.
>
> If that is true -- and if languages other than Java are actually using
> these tree codes -- that is fine.
>
> The current inliner already has mechanisms for language-specific
> extensions. If those can be used, or it can be easily extended so that
> they can be used, great.
Okay.
> The contention was that the current inliner could *not* be used, and that
> an entirely new one had to be written.
Not exactly, although some of the structures used in the inliner
(e.g. statement expressions) aren't going to make my life very easy.
Andrew.