This is the mail archive of the 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: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Jeff Law wrote:

> On 11/13/13 08:59, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > 
> > > Really the best place to start IMHO would be to evict 'tree' from the
> > > front ends. That would really be a step towards making the front ends
> > > independent of the rest of the compiler, and it would simplify changes
> > > towards static 'tree' types.
> > 
> >   From a C perspective, a useful change that would facilitate moving the IR
> > away from tree would be moving most of fold to operate on GIMPLE instead
> > of on trees (that is, rewriting it as GIMPLE optimizations; I don't think
> > this can be a mechanical refactoring).
> [ ... ]
> Yes.  That is most certainly part of "the plan".  Andrew, myself and others
> have discussed it extensively.  It's a lot of work, but getting the tree
> folder disentangled from the gimple optimizers is definitely on the hit list.

Note that *removing* things from the tree folder (and convert.c, and 
shorten_compare, and shorten_binary_op, and any other such fold-like 
things) once they've been moved to GIMPLE is a critical part of making it 
easier to clean up front-end IR; having them in both places won't help.

Joseph S. Myers

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