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: LTO, LLVM, etc.


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



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