This is the mail archive of the 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: From SSA back to GIMPLE.

J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> IMHO, in the future, GCC as a base an experimal compiler IS NOT good
> because of enormeous complexities to design this optimizing compiler.
> My reasons to select a good base are:
> * the programming language to develop a complex optimizing compiler
> MUST TO be high-level, more declarative than machine-imperative, OO,
> GC'ed, polymorphic and easier to interact with A.I. agents (e.g. ala
> ants colonies) to go storing better rules in the databases (to reuse
> them later).
> * the C programming language that is used to develop GCC is not
> following above these principles.

If you have a sufficiently good code-aware AI system (e.g. ants
colonies?!), then you can use it to _translate_ and _extract_ all the
interesting bits of GCC into its database, or even into your preferred
high-level language, and discard the fluff like C syntax and obsolete

If your AI isn't that good, I question whether it's good enough to do
the job you want it to :-)

-- Jamie

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