This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: <Rob1weld at aol dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:34:08 +0100
- Subject: RE: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal
- References: <email@example.com>
On 12 July 2007 05:21, Rob1weld@aol.com wrote:
>> On 7/10/07, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>>> On 7/10/07, Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote: You haven't
>>> explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE. I thought it was
>>> well explained on page: _http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html_
>> No, since as i said, their IR is the same as GIMPLE.
> You may say that but I am not the only one who says that CIL is both higher
> level and lower level than what
> we are using. IE: the _lower_ level portion is _simpler_ than GIMPLE -
> which _is_ what you want, is it not ?
No, the tuples project is not remotely about introducing a new intermediate
representation, it's a minor tweak to the one we already have to reorganise
some datastructures so they are more memory efficient. What you /appear/ to
be suggesting sounds more like "Why doesn't everyone drop what they're doing
and spend the next few years ripping the guts out of the compiler and
replacing it with some other compiler".
> As I mentioned, it is your project to do your own way. I just would not
> want to see you spend a lot of time coding to
> duplicate prior work.
Sure, there might well be design techniques and algorithms worth adopting
and adapting, but the chances of large chunks of code being meaningfully
transplantable are pretty small.
> You say you have already seen what I have suggested
> and want to start from scratch. OK.
"Start from scratch"? We already *have* GIMPLE. The tuples project is a
minor adjustment to it.
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....