This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, "'java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'Zack Weinberg '" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:40:35 +0100
- Subject: RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211149420.27189-100000@ops2.one-point.com><1058805106.12775.7.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Steven Bosscher writes:
> Op ma 21-07-2003, om 18:23 schreef Jeff Sturm:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, S. Bosscher wrote:
> > > Both patches fail miserably with Java,
> > > which apparently sometimes uses rtl inlining, and sometimes tree inlining.
> >
> > ...right, the bytecode frontend still uses rtl inlining. Plus, a single
> > invocation of jc1 may need both, since it's legal to compile a class file
> > together with java source at once.
> >
> > I'm also readying a patch for unit-at-a-time which might add a wrinkle. I
> > believe Andrew's working on converting the bytecode reader to
> > functions-as-trees. That might be worth having for 3.4.
>
> I believe it is a must-have if we're going to fix bug 7257 properly
> before 3.4. Going with the langhook when the lang uses both inliners is
> just not going to work I'm afraid...
>
> For tree-ssa, the bytecode compiler already did functions as trees,
> right?
Not already, no. I'm working on it.
> So it should be feasible for 3.4... Maybe you can open a bug
> for this to track the issue, and make 7257 depend on it?
I suppose it might be worth back porting functions as trees to
mainline, but it wouldn't be trivial.
If needs be we can diable the RTL inliner when compiling Java. I
don't think this is a huge bug deal.
Andrew.