This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 16:22:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
- References: <wvllm86k1m1.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com><u8d6theg4c.fsf@gromit.moeb><20020721140611.GA17810@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr>
Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:42:43AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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
>> > wrong.
>>
>> Inlining on SIMPLE might also allow to inline mixed languages, e.g. C
>> code into Fortran.
>
> This would require to store SIMPLE trees comming from different front-ends
> then reconstruct a global tree.
> (a little as the SGI's compiler works for interprocedural analysis, storing
> WHIRL trees into .o files, then building the whole tree at link/optimize time).
It would only make sense with whole program optimizations for
interprocedural analysis. Currently GCC does not do anything of this
kind but we should think forward and whole program optimizations is
something that some of us might want to see.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj