This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- From: Rob1weld at aol dot com
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: dberlin at dberlin dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:20:35 EDT
- Subject: Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
>On 7/10/07, firstname.lastname@example.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:
>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:
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
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.