This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:14:39 -0500
- Subject: Re: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528288B3 dot 8010109 at redhat dot com> <20131112203509 dot GC27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAD_=9DQRZy92RCJEopO=XHMj9+eDHQ0MW1g__ZaFNNrWQW=QNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc38jGfAaWwo5OWTxmQnNeP9=f5McGrW_3HCNJotvbBtKQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thus "fixing" trees would be far better as you'd win for both frontend
> and middle-end code!
For FEs, sure. I agree. But right now the focus is on fixing the
interface between FEs and the ME. One thing at a time.
Finally separating FE ASTs from the ME will give us some of the
modularity aspects we are looking for. Similar work would be
beneficial on the FE side, as well. Particularly those using 'tree'.
Front ends using their own data structures for ASTs will only need to
worry about emitting GIMPLE.
Front ends have their own share of issues. If we can at least isolate
them to the particular FE, we will have gained something. I also
believe that g++ needs a lot of similar work. But, again, one thing
at a time.
Diego.