This is the mail archive of the 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: [tree-ssa][rfc] plans for nested functions

Richard Henderson wrote:
> This is stuff that was running around my head this morning.
> I mostly wanted to write this down so that I don't forget...
> The problem I'm trying to solve is that, at present, we have
> ordering issues wrt compilation of nested functions.
> (1) We depend heavily on rtl-level state in order to compile
>     nested functions.

Why do you want to continue to support nested functions in the first
place? They are an abomination, a gcc-specific extension, and nobody
sane uses them (yeah, yeah, libobj, but I said _sane_).

Some ideas are just bad. Nested functions was one such idea. The
implementation used to do bad things (icache flushes at run-time,
for christ sake!).

Maybe you could support a specific subcase of nested functions where
they are always inlined, and basically do some slightly less nasty
tree-based inliner thing rather than any real nesting. And document
the horror as being a bad idea and only supported for legacy gcc

Are there really any users that do not deserve to either be fixed
or just shot in the head?


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