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: [RFC] type safe trees

From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
Cc: gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, zack at codesourcery dot com
Date: 23 Jun 2004 17:43:41 -0700
Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
References: <40D994BE.3080208@codesourcery.com><20040623224022.GB17880@daikokuya.co.uk>

Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> writes:

> We really need front-end specific data structures, lowered to a common
> representation (I suspect gimple).  It would even solve the current
> Kenner thread, though he may disagree.  Leave front ends to mind
> their own business; then if I fix things in C I don't have to worry
> about breaking something in Ada about which I have absolutely no clue.
> 
> Of course, it's a massive amount of work to do this, given how trees
> are now grossly intertwined with GC and PCH.  However, I think we're
> doing GC and PCH wrong too, and it's all just different manifestations
> of the same fundamental problem.

What part of the interaction between trees, GC, and PCH, prevents you from
creating new data structures for the frontend?

References:
- [RFC] type safe trees
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [RFC] type safe trees
  - From: Neil Booth

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