Patch: gcj optimizations
Tom Tromey
tromey@redhat.com
Sat Dec 1 13:34:00 GMT 2001
>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:
Bryce> I would like to see a more "generic" framework for doing
Bryce> this. That is, instead of having identifiers in
Bryce> JTI_GLOBAL_TREES
I agree. Modifying JTI_GLOBAL_TREES and the like is a pain.
I've updated my patch to do this. It's not quite ready to send yet
though.
Bryce> I thought things like __builtin_cos would fall back on the
Bryce> library function if the builtin wasn't implemented? In any case
Bryce> it ought to be possible for GCJ to find out if a given builtin
Bryce> has been registered.
Yes, you're right.
But as it stands right now the builtins are never registered. The
registration is only done for the C family of front ends. The whole
builtin mechanism seems tied pretty closely to the C view of the world
:-(. For instance you have to read builtin-types.def to process
builtins.def. But the former references stuff that is unknown and
useless to Java, like `complex_long_double_type_node'. We can fix or
work around this, I think. In doing this I've duplicated an
uncomfortably large amount of code. Ideally we'd share with the C
front ends, but there are enough minor differences that this may not
be possible. It's a mess.
Tom
More information about the Java-patches
mailing list