This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gsoc2015] Is Gimple FE eligible for gsoc this year?
- From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org>
- To: xue yinsong <xyshh94225 at hotmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:41:17 -0400
- Subject: Re: [gsoc2015] Is Gimple FE eligible for gsoc this year?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <BLU437-SMTP924BE38545D1FC0F43C1F485000 at phx dot gbl> <CAD_=9DQy5CYZqzCbZTA0=quGBk2xLsiC1M=DJd1xdib8yQT6Cg at mail dot gmail dot com> <BLU436-SMTP473D7ECF26024D76C7370985000 at phx dot gbl> <20150319035737 dot GA8662 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <BLU436-SMTP216700B45A5B1355CBDAEA485010 at phx dot gbl>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 08:36:50PM +0800, xue yinsong wrote:
> Thanks for the guidance.
> I tried to merge thunk into this branch.
> However, it seems a small part of Gimple FE is a bit outdated.
> is_param / is_marked / htab are still used in parser.c
> ( https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gimple-front-end/gcc/gimple/parser.c ).
yeah, you can look at my patches to remove that stuff from trunk for
guidance on how to fix that up.
> It may take me some time to fix these.
that's expected given the branch hasn't merged with trunk in a long
time, and I kind of suspect it didn't actually work at the last merge I
> On 15/3/19 äå11:57, "Trevor Saunders" <email@example.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:09:28PM +0800, xue yinsong wrote:
> >> On 15/3/18 äå10:08, "Diego Novillo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, xue yinsong <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Somehow this project is not in the gsoc ideas list, and itâs been one year since the last commit(According to https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gimple-front-end/ChangeLog).
> >> >>
> >> >> Could someone tell me if this project is still active and eligible for this yearâs gsoc?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure. You'd have to find someone willing to mentor. There are
> >> >other cleanups necessary for this to be viable. Perhaps start with
> >> >those?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Diego.
> >> Iâm glad to get started now.
> >> Could you please give me some specific directions to work on ?
> >I can't realistically offer more than to be a back up mentor for this
> >given my level of experience and available time. That said here are my
> >thoughts on how to proceed on this project. The first big use for the
> >gimple front end will be to be able to test specific bits of the
> >compiler with less interference from other parts. If you can merge
> >something that will let some people write tests for their bugs /
> >features with less work then the natural tendancy will be to improve the
> >gimple front end. So I think the first goal should be to merge
> >something that works in some cases and then work on fixing the cases it
> >can't be used in. So first merge trunk into the gimple-front-end
> >branch. Then get the gimple front end to create gimple and pass it down
> >to the optimizer. Once that works I suspect you will be able to write
> >test cases for some bugs people are fixing for the gimple front end to
> >prove it can test things easily. If you get to that point I think we
> >should look at merging the branch into main line and we can talk about
> >next steps.
> >thanks and good luck!
> >> Yinsong.