RE: Building GENERIC trees and passing the symbol table

[Tom Crick <cs1tc at bath dot ac dot uk>]

> On Fri,  5 Mar 2004 23:31:31 +0000 Tom Crick <cs1tc@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting "" <law@redhat.com>:
> > 
> > > In message <1078431212.40478dec6ddeb@webmail.bath.ac.uk>, Tom Crick
writes:  
>I'm leaning towards going straight to GENERIC trees, just 
> > > for the simple fact  >that it prevents having to write a 
> > > 'genericise()' function and the need to  >create my own AST - I'd 
> > > have a documented format to aim towards. Creating generic directly 
> > > would be my recommendation.
> > Good - I'm glad that it seems to be the best way!
> > 
> > >  > How complex is it to build GENERIC trees, as I am mindful of 
> > > having  > contingency plans if it goes awry. Fairly simple if you 
> > > start with GENERIC as your target.  It's harder to retrofit if 
> > > you've already got a large body of code which generates 
> its own AST.
> > Fair enough - it makes more sense to aim towards a set structure 
> > rather than creating one of my own.
> > 
> > > The f95 front-end generates GENERIC trees directly and may be useful 
> > > for you to use as a reference.
> > Is there a definition document for GENERIC? I've looked at the SSA for 
> > Trees site 
> > [http://gnu.essentkabel.com/software/gcc/projects/tree-ssa/], but 
> > cannot find an appropriate document. Where is the structure 
> of GENERIC 
> > defined?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Segerlund [mailto:lars.segerlund@comsys.se] 
> Sent: 08 March 2004 11:39
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Building GENERIC trees
> 
>  Hi again, the thing about GENERIC is that it's not all that 
> documented, however there were a thread about this a while 
> ago on the gcc mailinglist, search through the archives and 
> you will find a mail which states ' if it's not in these 
> files then it's not GENERIC, ( and some files are named, fx. 
> tree.h and some more ). I dare not give you an answer 
> straight from my head because the probability of error is too large.
> 
>  / Lars Segerlund.

Lovely, thanks for the pointer - I'll check out treelang in gcc-3.5 as well.


Also related to this, what is required with respect to the availability of
the symbol table? Would I have to pass my symbol table along with the
GENERIC tree? Does the symbol table have to be in any particular structure
or format?

Thanks again,

Tom