This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: type consistency of gimple
- From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Hubicha, Jan" <jh at suse dot cz>, "Edelsohn, David" <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:13:49 -0400
- Subject: Re: type consistency of gimple
- References: <44DCEAAA.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44DCEDF1.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44DCF0A0.email@example.com> <44DF6702.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44E074F4.email@example.com> <44E08E4C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44E1E12C.email@example.com> <44E1EF05.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44E1F140.email@example.com>
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote on 08/15/06 11:57:
>> We should be looking at the back end to see where it cannot see what it
>> needs to see rather than trying to stop getting the middle end code into
>> a reasonable form.
> You're confused. This is a middle-end mis-optimization. However, it is
> true that we should probably make the optimizers smarter.
> First, though, we must define a GIMPLE type system.
I most likely am. You are right, we need a type system.