This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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: RFC: Java inliner

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "java at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 10 Jul 2002 08:39:45 -0600
Subject: Re: RFC: Java inliner
References: <15648.40350.493795.623862@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0207011455550.20102-100000@dberlin.org><15648.42609.739440.682415@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><orr8ici2sh.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

Alexandre> I wonder if, instead of duplicating the code from
Alexandre> tree-inline.c and then modifying it to suit Java, we
Alexandre> wouldn't be better off with an #if/#else/#endif (hopefully
Alexandre> temporary) mess, so as to avoid divergence between these
Alexandre> files...

I'd rather see Andrew just check in his existing inliner.  My
reasoning is that eventually we'll be using the SIMPLE inliner.  I
think the potential divergences between now and that point won't
matter much.

Tom

References:
- Re: RFC: Java inliner
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: Java inliner
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: RFC: Java inliner
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: Java inliner
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

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