Re: GSoc-2015: Modular GCC

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 03/06/15 18:22, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> 05.03.2015 18:46, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Certainly still useful, the trick is finding a hunk of that work that
> > can be tackled via GSoc.
> >
> > jeff
>
> Though I'm not participating in GSoC, I would be glad to get involved in
> GCC development.
>
> Could you please give some comments on current status of the following part:
>
> "Before GCC can be modularized properly, it is necessary to make clear
> what interfaces and declarations are actually needed in each source
> file. This will, no doubt, be a huge job. It is unclear at the moment
> whether there are tools available that could help (Dehydra perhaps, or a
> dedicated plugin, or Ctags? Or turn this patch into a proper plugin?
> Maybe create a symbols database and identify dependencies to break?)."
It's an ongoing project. Two active sub-projects are pulling apart the 
headers so that we can identify routines from the front-ends that are 
being used outside the front-ends and deferring of debugging output.

The intermediate goal of the first of those projects is the ability to 
start extracting tree types out of the gimple and backends.

Other sub-projects that have received a lot of attention over the last 
year are adding a c++ class hierarchy to part of gimple and RTL.  One 
potentially easy project there would be to take David Malcolm's work to 
turn the RTL EXPR & INSN lists into standard C++ forward lists.  One 
that's harder would be pushing the rtx_insn * class further.  Basically 
most of the places where we have a as-a cast between rtx_insn * and an 
rtx is a good candidate for removal and further propagation of rtx_insn 
* types.

Jeff