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: We're out of tree codes; now what?

From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini at suse dot de>, "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:01:00 +0100
Subject: Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
References: <24b520d20703121113y61cd3911odd9c385ff775dfb9@mail.gmail.com> <45F5BB1A.40803@suse.de> <de8d50360703121347p3b93a99ftf7ca4916a4b24d83@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/12/07, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:

Can I recommend something just crazy, rewrite the C and C++ front-ends
so they don't use the tree structure at all except when lowering until
gimple like the rest of the GCC front-ends?


The C front end already emits generic, so there's almost no win in
rewriting it (one lame tree code in c-common.def -- not worth the
effort ;-).

Gr.
Steven

Follow-Ups:
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Doug Gregor
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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