This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Syntactic structures
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:44:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Syntactic structures
- References: <20030727224601.GA5476@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4BD7851C-C1EF-11D7-B94D-000A95A34564@dberlin.org> <20030729184217.GA6057@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030802233113.GA13635@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <email@example.com> <20030803014340.GB21339@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > With the current status of things one should keep two representations,
> > the cfg and the syntax tree, synchronized. A modification in one
> > representation have to update the other representation. This is redundant.
> Right. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned performance.
> IMO, the duality of the data structures needs to disappear. A single
> data structure (the CFG) physically containing sequences of tree or RTL
> statements is what I would like us to move to.
fine, so say I have (at least) a week of time now and a will to do it.
Is it OK with everyone? I would be gracious about any comments on
points where I could run into problems.
> Several ideas have been proposed about this issue, but to date I don't
> think anybody has implemented any of them. Perhaps this would be a good
> time to rehash the ideas again and get something going.
Some discussion(s) in mailing list I should know about?