This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IPA
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA at il dot ibm dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Ayal Zaks <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>, "Berlin, Daniel" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,"Novillo, Diego" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, hubicka at ucw dot cz, Mircea Namolaru <NAMOLARU at il dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:20:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: IPA
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <OF392747EC.15519132-ONC2256F2D.00576111-C2256F2D.005769AD@il.ibm.com> <416EADEA.2030406@naturalbridge.com> <200410141922.50258.stevenb@suse.de>
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 14 October 2004 18:48, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
However, this violates one of the stallman principals of not wanting to
have a defined api for the intermediate form of the compiler. So we are
forced to do something that is inferior and that, most likely, will not be
widely used.
RMS has been convinced to step off his principles before (see gcc
vs. egcsfor example), so we don't have to declare defeat before
trying.
IMO we should just work as-if we can have a streamable intermediate
form, and show that there is serious benefit for GCC and for Free
Software in general to have this feature. We should gather and put
up the numbers, and convince RMS that it's a Good Thing.
Yes.
I have said publicly for some time now that I think that RMS is mistaken
in this particular respect, and that a read/write interface to an
intermediate form is an essential part of GCC's future. Once we build
it and demonstrate that it is useful, I am confident that it will become
part of GCC because I do not think RMS will not want to see GCC cede
ground to other compilers.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com