This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] g95 SEGV building libgfortran
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:02:06 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] g95 SEGV building libgfortran
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <200309042054.h84KsKMD017048@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 16:54, law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <1062707481.3567.165.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo
> writes:
> >On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 16:27, law@redhat.com wrote:
> >
> >> It's easy enough to add code to call the gimplifier in
> >> gfc_generate_function_code, but I'm wondering if that's really the right
> >> thing to do (ie, is there some reason why you do not call
> >> gimplify_function_tree -- are you assuming that it's called from somewhere
> >> in the generic parts of the compiler?)
> >>
> >I was under the impression that f95 generated GIMPLE directly.
> Well, then it really shouldn't be generating LOOP_EXPRs anymore, should it? :-)
>
Aha! This is where we go back to the language vs optimizer issue :) If
we don't allow the FE to generate LOOP_EXPR, then we are effectively
changing the GIMPLE grammar. I'm fine with that, but we need to
document the change in the grammar and probably ask the Fortran folks if
that's OK with them.
I don't know whether it's merely annoying or impossible to make that
change in the Fortran FE. In principle, I wouldn't think it's
impossible, but then again I'm not the one making the change :)
Diego.