This is the mail archive of the
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: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:03:12 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- References: <email@example.com>
On 7/10/07, Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 7/9/2007 2:37:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>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
>> >This page http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/ has a link to this document
>> >which describes a means to obtain three-address code here
>> http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ext.html#toc24 .
>> >>2007/7/08, Diego Novillo <firstname.lastname@example.org_
>> (mailto:email@example.com) >:
>> >>Any specific reasons why we should? Better memory savings? Faster
>> >>processing? It's not clear from your message what the advantages
>> >>be (ignoring the fact that their implementation language is completely
>You haven't explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE.
I thought it was well explained on page:
No, since as i said, their IR is the same as GIMPLE.
It is your project to write the way you want. You "RFC letter" said
"Thoughts/comments on the
proposal?". My reply is that this
and this site: _http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html_
(http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html) provide a
better explanation of IR issues.
Okay, let me ask a different question.
What makes you believe we aren't aware of these projects?
MLRISC has been around for *years* as has CIL.
In fact, I reported bugs against CIL.
We are quite aware of what all of them do, we just do not see the
advantages, and you have not given any explicit enumeration of them.