Building GENERIC trees

[Tom Crick]

Quoting "" <law@redhat.com>:

> In message <1078431212.40478dec6ddeb@webmail.bath.ac.uk>, Tom Crick writes:
>  >I'm leaning towards going straight to GENERIC trees, just for the simple
> fact
>  >that it prevents having to write a 'genericise()' function and the need to
>  >create my own AST - I'd have a documented format to aim towards. 
> Creating generic directly would be my recommendation.
Good - I'm glad that it seems to be the best way!

>  > How complex is it to build GENERIC trees, as I am mindful of having
>  > contingency plans if it goes awry.
> Fairly simple if you start with GENERIC as your target.  It's harder to
> retrofit if you've already got a large body of code which generates its
> own AST.
Fair enough - it makes more sense to aim towards a set structure rather than
creating one of my own.

> The f95 front-end generates GENERIC trees directly and may be useful for
> you to use as a reference.
Is there a definition document for GENERIC? I've looked at the SSA for Trees
site [http://gnu.essentkabel.com/software/gcc/projects/tree-ssa/], but cannot
find an appropriate document. Where is the structure of GENERIC defined?

Thanks,

Tom