RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal

[Daniel Berlin]

On 7/10/07, Rob1weld@aol.com <Rob1weld@aol.com> wrote:
> >In a message dated 7/9/2007 2:37:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> dberlin@dberlin.org writes:
> >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 thought it was well explained on page:
> _http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html_ (http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html)

No, since as i said, their IR is the same as GIMPLE.


>
> It is your project to write the way you want. You "RFC letter" said
> "Thoughts/comments on the
> proposal?". My reply is that this
> page:_http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html_
> (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html)
> and this site: _http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html_
> (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html)  provide  a
> better explanation of IR issues.
Okay, let me ask a different question.
What makes you believe we aren't aware of these projects?
MLRISC has been around for *years* as has CIL.
In fact, I reported bugs against CIL.

We are quite aware of what all of them do, we just do not see the
advantages, and you have not given any explicit enumeration of them.