This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: "Rob1weld at aol dot com" <Rob1weld at aol dot com>
- Cc: "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:36:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- References: <d2f.aa57b2c.33c33e07@aol.com>
On 7/9/07, Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 7/7/2007 4:04:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Rob1weld
writes:
>This page http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/ has a link to this document
http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/
>which describes a means to obtain three-address code here
http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ext.html#toc24 .
>>2007/7/08, Diego Novillo <_dnovillo@redhat.com_
(mailto:dnovillo@redhat.com) >:
>>Any specific reasons why we should? Better memory savings? Faster
>>processing? It's not clear from your message what the advantages would
>>be (ignoring the fact that their implementation language is completely
>>different).
You haven't explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE.
I can't tell, but you may be under the impression GIMPLE is something
in the future. It is not.
Our IR is already GIMPLE, and a three address code simplified form of
C. We are simply talking about changing the underlying datastructures
that store it.
Hint: CIL's IR is almost exactly GIMPLE with alpha renaming over multiple units.
--Dan