This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bug 16115, C++ invisible references
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 00:33, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I think this is a major policy point. It may be something we should
talk to the SC about, because it's a question of what we want GCC to be,
as much as it is a technical question. If GCC to be purely a compiler,
then my argument has no validity. If, on the other hand, we want G++ to
be a separate front end that can be used for other purposes, then my
argument has considerably more utility.
All would be much easier if you could go EDG-like all the way,
with a G++ specific (ie. non-tree) internal representation that
is very close to the source code, which can be lowered at a
later point (say, after parsing the whole file?) to the back-end
representation (ie. trees, but I'm sure LLVM and perhaps other
Free Software compilers).
I don't necessarily disagree, but actually, I think trees would work OK.
Since I've been gluing analysis tools to front ends for over a decade
now, I feel like I've got a decent sense of what needs to be there and
what doesn't. Trees are not necessarily ideal, but they would probably
be sufficient, with relatively minor changes.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com