* Re: [RFC] Gimple and language independent
@ 2004-10-17 8:54 Richard Kenner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2004-10-17 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pinskia; +Cc: gcc
Really gimple should be language independent in the sense the types
are defined by gimple and not the other way around (the only exception
is structs and unions). What do people think about this?
I think that structs and unions are among the most interesting cases, since
the question of which are compatible is so language-dependent, so I think
we can't exclude that case.
I know there has been talk about this recently and how gimple is
dependent on the type system of the source language which I think is
wrong and we loose some optimizations because of it.
I don't see that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [RFC] Gimple and language independent
@ 2004-10-17 0:33 Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2004-10-17 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org' List
Really gimple should be language independent in the sense the types are
defined by gimple and not the other way around (the only exception is
structs and unions). What do people think about this?
I know there has been talk about this recently and how gimple is
dependent
on the type system of the source language which I think is wrong and we
loose some optimizations because of it.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-10-16 21:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-10-17 8:54 [RFC] Gimple and language independent Richard Kenner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-17 0:33 Andrew Pinski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).