This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO, LLVM, etc.
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:48:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: LTO, LLVM, etc.
- References: <4391F562.6070804@codesourcery.com>
On Saturday 03 December 2005 20:43, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> There is one advantage I see in the LTO design over LLVM's design. In
> particular, the LTO proposal envisions a file format that is roughly at
> the level of GIMPLE. Such a file format could easily be extended to be
> at the source-level version of Tree used in the front-ends, so that
> object files could contain two extra sections: one for LTO and one for
> source-level information. The latter section could be used for things
> like C++ "export" -- but, more importantly, for other tools that need
> source-level information, like IDEs, indexers, checkers, etc.
I actually see this as a disadvantage.
IMVHO dumping for "export" and front-end tools and for the optimizers
should not be coupled like this. Iff we decide to dump trees, then I
would hope the dumper would dump GIMPLE only, not the full front end
and middle-end tree representation.
Sharing a tree dumper between the front ends and the middle-end would
only make it more difficult again to move to sane data structures for
the middle end and to cleaner data structures for the front ends.
Gr.
Steven