This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan

From: Geert Bosch <bosch at adacore dot com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, dvorakz at suse dot cz,Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>, roger at eyesopen dot com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:11:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
References: <420E0817.3040303@codesourcery.com> <20050212.100547.71091252.kazu@cs.umass.edu> <420E1F87.7010504@codesourcery.com> <20050212.112933.74743921.kazu@cs.umass.edu> <420E438F.6070202@codesourcery.com> <cb332c621085b681e385df01621ba8c3@adacore.com> <420E5FB7.3090006@codesourcery.com>

On Feb 12, 2005, at 14:57, Nathan Sidwell wrote:

I entirely agree.  Unfortunately what we have now is not that --
fold is doing both optimization and (some) C & C++ semantic stuff.

Your proposal to have the tree folders check wether the program
obeys C/C++ languages semantics seems fundamentally flowed.


OK, we're in violent agreement then! :)
I misunderstood your message.

That is not my proposal.  I'm sorry if I gave the impression it was,
but it isn't.  (What I meant by a tree folders in that regard
was an FE-specific folder.)

OK, then things make a lot more sense!

References:
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Geert Bosch
- Re: [RFC] fold Reorganization Plan
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]