Are compilation of both cc1 and cc1plus based on the concept of function?

[Martin Sebor]

On 02/15/2017 06:59 PM, yin liu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I understand correctly, the compilation of cc1 is based on the
> concept of function.
> i.e. The first function is parsed and its AST is built. Then, the
> function is transformed into RTL and finally it is translated into
> assembler code. Once the assembler code is produced for the first
> function, the second function is parsed and the same path is followed
> for generating the assembler source.
>
> My question is, how about the cc1plus? Since the C++ use class as the
> unit of source code, would it also based on the function?

Yes, the only difference between the two programs is that one uses
the C front end and the other the C++ front end.  Each of these
translates either C or C++ code into an AST representation of
a program a function at a time.  The AST is then worked on by
the language-independent middle-end to generate the GIMPLE
representation of the program, still one function at a time.
The GIMPLE representation is then transformed and optimized, one
function at a time (with inlining integrating some functions into
others), and then eventually translated into the RTL.

Classes don't change any of this.  They are basically just
a scoping mechanism.

Martin