This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Use of build_binary_op
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:09:28AM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:57:52 +0200, Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:28:33AM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:40:51 +0200, Pop Sébastian <pop@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
>
> > > I think that we have to define an interface on both lowered and
> >> > non lowered GIMPLE.
> >>
> >> Why would they need to be different?
> >>
> > since you could just say that GENERIC and GIMPLE trees are of different types.
> > But in C we don't have support for such fine type declarations...
>
> I don't think that's a distinction we want to describe in terms of type.
GIMPLE is a subset of GENERIC. So GIMPLE has all the features GENERIC has,
plus some other that are either redefined or added in extension.
GIMPLE can be defined as a subtype of GENERIC.
> Lowering is just another transformation, and may not happen all at once.
> It's a design goal that the same tools should work on both GENERIC and
> GIMPLE, just as the same tools work on RTL throughout rest_of_compilation.
>
> Jason