This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Use of build_binary_op
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:08:07PM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:43:00 +0200, Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:09:28AM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:57:52 +0200, Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> > you could just say that GENERIC and GIMPLE trees are of different types.
> >>
> >> I don't think that's a distinction we want to describe in terms of type.
>
> > GIMPLE is a subset of GENERIC. So GIMPLE has all the features GENERIC has,
> > plus some other that are either redefined or added in extension.
>
> > GIMPLE can be defined as a subtype of GENERIC.
>
> It could, but I don't think it would be useful. Transformations on a
> GIMPLE tree can produce something which does not satisfy the GIMPLE
> constraints, and needs to be simplified again. The inliner, for example.
>
I have not yet looked at the inliner code, but I have a question:
does the inliner work on the simplified version of GENERIC or just
on GENERIC trees?
Even if it works on GIMPLE you could generate a GENERIC tree and then
refine to GIMPLE.
> Jason