This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: type consistency of gimple
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> I am modifying my code so that their is a preprocessor flag,
> STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM that either writes or does not write the redundant
> type nodes.
I think the macro name is needlessly negative, but I think the idea is
fine. Could we just say something like EXPLICIT_TYPE_INFORMATION instead?
> I would suggest that we ask those with patches to strengthen the type
> system to contribute those patches to the lto branch and for diego (who
> I believe has the last working type checker) to contribute that type
> checker to the lto branch.
I agree. I think it's very desirable for the type-checker to be a
separate pass so that we can run it at various points in the compilation
to check for consistency; that will help us isolate problems.
(650) 331-3385 x713