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: type consistency of gimple

Kenneth Zadeck wrote:

> I am modifying my code so that their is a preprocessor flag,
> STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM that either writes or does not write the redundant
> type nodes. 

I think the macro name is needlessly negative, but I think the idea is
fine.  Could we just say something like EXPLICIT_TYPE_INFORMATION instead?

> I would suggest that we ask those with patches to strengthen the type
> system to contribute those patches to the lto branch and for diego (who
> I believe has the last working type checker) to contribute that type
> checker to the lto branch.

I agree.  I think it's very desirable for the type-checker to be a
separate pass so that we can run it at various points in the compilation
to check for consistency; that will help us isolate problems.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]