Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.

["J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>]

2007/10/22, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@kam.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Pizzaro,
>
> > Is not it easy to write 3 stages GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL instead of 5 stages?
> >
> > Is meaningful the optimization of the complex bi-transformation
> > GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE?
> >
> > Is more powerful GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL + "trial-and-error" local optimization?
> >
> >    Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro
>
> everyone else here is too polite to tell it to you, but could you please
> shut up, until:
>
> -- you learn at least basics of English grammar (so that we can actually
>    understand what you are saying), and
> -- at least something about gcc and compilers in general (so that what
>    you say makes some sense)?
>
> While I was mildly annoyed by your previous "contributions" to the
> discussion in the gcc mailing list, I could tolerate those.  But
> answering a seriously ment question of a beginner by this confusing
> and completely irrelevant drivel is another thing.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Zdenek Dvorak
>

Dear Zdenek Dvorak,

Why have i to shut up? Is it an order?

What is the big problem when i talk about the weakness of such thing?

Ahhh, it's a problem, then i shut up to solve this weakness's problem.

Do you want it Dvorak?

No problem man.

   J.C. Pizarro