This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:10:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
References: <wvllm86k1m1.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com><3D39AC83.6070603@bothner.com>

>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

> Jason Merrill wrote:
>> In a previous thread, Diego has suggested that inlining would be done on
>> language-dependent trees.  I think this is a mistake; IMO it should be done
>> at the SIMPLE level.  Requiring the inliner to know about frontend trees is
>> wrong.

> But why can't the inliner work at the GENERIC level?

It certainly could.  But what would be the advantage of doing it there
rather than in SIMPLE?

Jason

References:
- Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: Language-independent functions-as-trees representation
  - From: Per Bothner

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