RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal

[Daniel Berlin]

On 7/9/07, Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote:
> >In a message dated 7/7/2007 4:04:01 A.M.  Pacific Daylight Time, Rob1weld
> writes:
> >This page  http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/ has a link to this document
> http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/
> >which describes a means to obtain  three-address code here
> http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ext.html#toc24 .
>
> >>2007/7/08, Diego Novillo <_dnovillo@redhat.com_
> (mailto:dnovillo@redhat.com) >:
> >>Any  specific reasons why we should?  Better memory savings?  Faster
> >>processing?  It's not clear from your message what the  advantages would
> >>be (ignoring the fact that their implementation  language is completely
> >>different).
>
You haven't explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE.
I can't tell, but you may be under the impression GIMPLE is something
in the future. It is not.
Our IR is already GIMPLE, and a three address code simplified form of
C. We are simply talking about changing the underlying datastructures
that store it.

Hint: CIL's IR is almost exactly GIMPLE with alpha renaming over multiple units.

--Dan