This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- To: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: "'java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'aph at redhat dot com '" <aph at redhat dot com>, "'Zack Weinberg '" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, S. Bosscher wrote:
> No failures, this is a cleanup that I thought we would we need to get rid of
> flag_inline_trees. Zack and I had an almost identical patch for that,
> introducing a langhook that tells the middle end if the language uses the
> rtl inliner or the tree inliner.
Oh, I see. But as you found out...
> Both patches fail miserably with Java,
> which apparently sometimes uses rtl inlining, and sometimes tree inlining.
...right, the bytecode frontend still uses rtl inlining. Plus, a single
invocation of jc1 may need both, since it's legal to compile a class file
together with java source at once.
I'm also readying a patch for unit-at-a-time which might add a wrinkle. I
believe Andrew's working on converting the bytecode reader to
functions-as-trees. That might be worth having for 3.4.
Jeff