This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO, LLVM, etc.
Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de> writes:
| 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.
I'm wondering what the reasons are.
| 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.
Why?
-- Gaby