This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: RFC: Java inliner
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"java at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Java inliner
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes:
> >
> >
> > > I believe the right thing to do in the short term is extend the C/C++
> > > inliner to understand the Java trees. Almost all of the tree codes
> > > encountered will be generic tree codes defined in tree.def.
> >
> > If that is true -- and if languages other than Java are actually using
> > these tree codes -- that is fine.
> >
> > The current inliner already has mechanisms for language-specific
> > extensions. If those can be used, or it can be easily extended so that
> > they can be used, great.
>
> Okay.
>
> > The contention was that the current inliner could *not* be used, and that
> > an entirely new one had to be written.
>
> Not exactly, although some of the structures used in the inliner
> (e.g. statement expressions) aren't going to make my life very easy.
It shouldn't be all that difficult to get rid of the statement
expressions.
In fact, it might be the case that we can just remove the statement
expression wrapper right now, and it'll still just work.
i'll check.
>
> Andrew.
>
>