This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix type correctness of fold_indirect_ref


Andrew Pinski wrote:

This is where I am going to say, lets define a type system then because right
now the middle-end does this which is wrong.

I agree, better typing rules would be nice.


Furthermore, the C++ front end probably shouldn't be doing this kind of optimization anyhow; we really want it to be faithful to the source representation to the extent reasonable. (See extensive previous discussions on this point.) It may be that the C++ gimplifier should be doing this, but not the front end proper.


I am going to say the C++ front-end should not using trees

That's orthogonal. There's no reason you can't write a great front end using trees. The biggest negative -- and one of the reasons that both Fortran and Ada do not do it that way -- is that using trees does tie you to the rest of GCC.


I agree that you shouldn't be "generating code" during parsing and semantic analysis, but that's not the same as saying that using trees is a bad thing.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]