From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-54917-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5718 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2002 10:35:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5689 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2002 10:35:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 10:35:40 -0000
Received: from cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (vpn50-1.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.1])
	by executor.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E5AA1ABAFC; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:35:37 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from aph@localhost)
	by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id g5CAZad19675;
	Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:35:36 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com: aph set sender to aph@cambridge.redhat.com using -f
From: Andrew Haley <aph@cambridge.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15623.9208.642965.405636@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:47:00 -0000
To: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Java inliner
In-Reply-To: <3D07096A.5010102@bothner.com>
References: <3460000.1023847519@localhost>
	<3D07096A.5010102@bothner.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2

Per Bothner writes:
 > Mark Mitchell wrote:
 > > The right thing to do is clear: convert the Java front end to use trees
 > > that are more like the C/C++ trees.
 > 
 > Let us recap:
 > 
 > (1) Gcc orignally has a set of generic tree codes designed to be
 > more-or-less language-independent.
 > (2) Java carefully adds a few new tree codes in the sprit of the
 > original, re-using existing tree-codes where it makes sense, for example
 > using COMPOUND_EXPR for (e1; e3;) and COND_EXPR for if-then-else.
 > (3) The C++ people add a whole new slew of tree-codes that are
 >    (a) redundant, and
 >    (b) less general and only suitable for C/C++ (e.g. not it appears
 >    useful for expression languages).
 > (4) The C++ people want the Java people to switch to using their
 > tree-codes, and say this is "the right thing to do".
 > 
 > I beg to disagree.
 > 
 > I believe the right thing to do in the short term is extend the C/C++
 > inliner to understand the Java trees.  Almost all of the tree codes 
 > encountered will be generic tree codes defined in tree.def.  There are
 > some tree-codes in java-tree.def; most of these are specific to parse.y,
 > and will have disappeared by the time they reach the inliner.

I agree.  

Java needs an inliner.  It seems to me completely crazy to convert the
front end to require Java to use C++ trees in order to get it.

I'm going to look at doing what Per suggests.  If it turns out not to
be a clean patch I'll abandon the idea.

Andrew.