From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29538 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2004 19:37:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29507 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 19:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 19:37:01 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA09524; Tue, 22 Jun 04 15:38:33 EDT Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:44:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10406221938.AA09524@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: mark@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Patch to allow Ada to work with tree-ssa Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg01786.txt.bz2 However, you've penalized the vastly more common case (100% of the cases in ANSI/ISO C89) at the expense of an uncommon case. That's true in Ada as well, of course. But, unfortunately, much of compiler development concentrates on getting the very uncommon cases right. That's why you should find another way -- a different tree code, a flag in the node indicating how many arguments are in use, or stuff the additional arguments into the existing slots by using a TREE_LIST in those slots as necessary. Yes, but what I hear from the tree-ssa folks is that it's absolutely critical that GIMPLE be as simple as possible, which goes against any of those methods. That's the tradeoff here. If it were permitted to make GIMPLE be more complex, we likely wouldn't have need the extra fields in the first place!