This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
- From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:31:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
- References: <email@example.com>
Jason Merrill wrote:
In a previous thread, Diego has suggested that inlining would be done on
language-dependent trees. I think this is a mistake; IMO it should be done
at the SIMPLE level. Requiring the inliner to know about frontend trees is
But why can't the inliner work at the GENERIC level?
Per (or other Java folk), why does the Java frontend use BLOCK as an
expression rather than use BIND_EXPR, which seems to serve the same
I don't remember. Possibly because I did think the BIND_EXPR bought us
anything over using just the BLOCK, which we needed anyway. It does
look like using BIND_EXPR would be cleaner.