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: [SPAM] Re: Attempting changes to the GIMPLifier

From: nkavv at physics dot auth dot gr
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:10:36 +0300
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Attempting changes to the GIMPLifier
References: <20120422235306.58944ofteycjh6w4@mail.physics.auth.gr> <CAFiYyc2auBv_wsXR7iznZZBuy=kN_x1KJ3vzDqWnCkNqMnYMZA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard

1. Printing global variables.
Look at the cgraph (.000i.cgraph) dump.

2. Preserving function arguments (what I call an "interface").
I think we do that now.

Thank you very much! I'll grab the latest release and have a look.

Best regards,
Nikolaos Kavvadias

Both 1 and 2 are not currently addressed, at least in the gcc-4.5.1 and
gcc-4.6.0 gimplifiers that I work with.

Is this information available in internal data structures so I can expose it
via use of the GIMPLE API?

I've also noticed inconsistencies among GIMPLE dumps produced following
different optimizations, but this is another topic.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Nikolaos Kavvadias

References:
- Attempting changes to the GIMPLifier
  - From: nkavv
- Re: Attempting changes to the GIMPLifier
  - From: Richard Guenther

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