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: SIMPLE and fat pointers

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:38:21 -0400
Subject: Re: SIMPLE and fat pointers
Organization: Red Hat Canada
References: <1025819366.1932.37.camel@steven> <20020705212817.GA32199@tornado.toronto.redhat.com> <1026567285.734.60.camel@steven>

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> Well, no, but my guess is that it would require quite a few grammar
> changes, looking at the number of rules it takes in F95. Not nice.
> Then you still need to define the semantics, and I'm not even sure
> they're similair for Ada and Fortran 95.
> 
I was actually looking for an F95 example where you folks use
these nodes.  I'm not familiar with these language constructs.

Another way of looking at it is think about how you would
generate RTL for these nodes.  Or better yet, how would you
write these F95 constructs in C?

Thanks.  Diego.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SIMPLE and fat pointers
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- SIMPLE and fat pointers
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: SIMPLE and fat pointers
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: SIMPLE and fat pointers
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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