This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] g95 SEGV building libgfortran
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:36:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] g95 SEGV building libgfortran
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <200309042113.h84LDvPt017143@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <200309042257.50729.paul@nowt.org>
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 17:57, Paul Brook wrote:
> My vote is to leave LOOP_EXPRs in the interface to the frontends (ie
> GENERIC). Otherwise we're going to end up with large amounts of lowering
> code duplicated between the different frontends.
>
Yes. LOOP_EXPR should remain in GENERIC. However, the problem here is
that I think tree_rest_of_compilation should be the one calling the
gimplifier.
Paul, IIUC, the Fortran FE does not call the gimplifier directly, but
calls t_r_o_c? At the moment, each front end is calling the gimplifier
on its own. When compiling Fortran, the optimizers are now being fed
GENERIC trees. That is not right.
I'm OK with removing LOOP_EXPR from GIMPLE, but it should remain in
GENERIC. The problem now is making sure all the FEs call into the
gimplifier via a common interface. tree_rest_of_compilation seems a
good candidate.
Richard, can t_r_o_c be that interface now? If not, the Fortran FE
should be calling into the gimplifier on its own until we fix the
missing bits.
Diego.