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: FW: Question about Gimple FE


On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I was hesitant to offer this option, but it's certainly a good
>>> starting point.  The representation encodes CFG, SSA, attributes,
>>> declarations and annotations.  It has a relatively fixed syntax, which
>>> makes it easy to parse.
>>
>>
>> Certainly using LLVM's textual format opens up a significant cans of worms,
>> but there's some obvious (and some less than obvious) benefits.
>
> I also want to mention that LLVM's IR is not an equivalent of GCC's IR:
> for instance, in GCC we have multi dimensional array types that are
> missing in LLVM.
>
> Having an IR that is more readable than LLVM's would be nice.

I still like the idea of using C + extensions most.  As well as making the
-fdump-tree-XXX dumps (more) valid C (+ extensions).  Cut & pasting
from dump files to generate testcases is currently somewhat awkward,
mainly due to the issue how we dump labels + goto destinations.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Sebastian


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