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: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- 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: 21 Jul 2003 18:31:47 +0200
- Subject: RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211149420.27189-100000@ops2.one-point.com>
Op ma 21-07-2003, om 18:23 schreef Jeff Sturm:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, S. Bosscher wrote:
> > 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.
I believe it is a must-have if we're going to fix bug 7257 properly
before 3.4. Going with the langhook when the lang uses both inliners is
just not going to work I'm afraid...
For tree-ssa, the bytecode compiler already did functions as trees,
right? So it should be feasible for 3.4... Maybe you can open a bug
for this to track the issue, and make 7257 depend on it?
Gr.
Steven