This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:15:07AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> > Where's GENERIC documented ? Is this something the g95 developers should
> > know about (I'm seeing the name for the first time) ?
> >
> I don't think it's documented anywhere. I saw them first
> mentioned by Jason as a working name for language-independent
> trees that do not have the strict structure imposed by SIMPLE.
>
Then it seems that the issue about over simplification of call
expressions due to the 3-address form of SIMPLE at inlining time is
solved if we perform inlining not on SIMPLE, but on GENERIC trees.
I understand GENERIC as beeing the original tree structure on which
we eliminate sugar syntaxes (most of which comes from c/c++ front-end
trees).
As Richard Henderson suggested we'll need some more GENERIC nodes
comming from other languages than C/C++ family. F95 and Java are two
good candidates. We'll have to extend trees with nodes for expressing
parallelism/thread concepts as pointed out by Richard.
Maybe what we search in GENERIC is the definition of a normal form for
imperative programs?
Sebastian.