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: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal


>On 7/10/07, dberlin@dberlin.org writes:
>>On 7/10/07,  Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote: 

>You haven't  explained what advantages CIL's IR has over  GIMPLE.
>>I thought  it was well explained on  page:
>>_http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html_  
(http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html)

>No, since as i said,  their IR is the same as GIMPLE.


You may say that but I am not the only one who says that CIL is both  higher 
level and lower level than what 
we are using. IE: the _lower_ level  portion is _simpler_ than GIMPLE - which 
_is_ what you want, is it not  ?


Maybe this page will make you feel more at home:  
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/projects/cli.html

While this is a  different implementation of CIL than what I suggested (since 
I also suggest  Deputy, which 
needs the _other_ CIL, though perhaps it could work with this  one), this one 
being the "Common Intermediate 
Language", the one I suggested  is the "C Intermediate Language" it also 
discusses GIMPLE:


CIL  simplification pass
Though most GIMPLE tree codes closely match what is  representable in CIL,  
_some_ _simply_ _do_ _not_. 
...
Such a constrained GIMPLE format is referred as "CIL simplified" GIMPLE  
throughout this documentation. 
 
 
As I mentioned, it is your project to do your own way. I just would not  want 
to see you spend a lot of time coding to 
duplicate prior work. You say you have already seen what I have  suggested 
and want to start from scratch. OK.
 
Rob
 
 



   


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