From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19020 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 22:58:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19002 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 22:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 22:58:12 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP id 059B818312; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:58:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33]) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5B01830D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:58:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (hekje1.shuis.tudelft.nl [145.94.192.78]) by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0HMwBQP018217; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:58:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6211A99FBE; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:55:50 +0100 (CET) From: Steven Bosscher To: Steven Bosscher , Diego Novillo , "Joseph S. Myers" , jh@suse.cz, gp@suse.de Subject: Re: cfg.texi (was: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <200401172111.43621.stevenb@suse.de> <200401172353.27093.stevenb@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200401172353.27093.stevenb@suse.de> Organization: SUSE Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401172355.50091.stevenb@suse.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01131.txt.bz2 On Saturday 17 January 2004 23:53, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Saturday 17 January 2004 21:11, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Saturday 17 January 2004 18:50, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 06:16, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > > One key advantage of tree-ssa (as I see it) is a cleaned-up front-end > > > > interface. As such it is a golden opportunity for a *documented* > > > > front-end interface, > > > > > > Agreed. We already have bits and pieces of documentation spread about > > > in papers and an initial GIMPLE documentation that Steven Bosscher > > > contributed last year. > > > > > > I will take care of collecting all in a single document that explains > > > the FE interfaces and the optimization infrastructure. Perhaps I could > > > even organize a talk about this for the next GCC Summit. > > > > I also have an updated cfg.texi. > > Like so. > > Basically this is an update of the cfg.texi that was written > by Honza et.al., but somehow never made it into the manual. > It needs checking, so let's work on it and get it in. When > this file is in, I'll see if I can find time to write down > all I can think of about GENERIC/GIMPLE. Oh, and yes this is older than the cfghooks. I need to work on a new section for that. Gr. Steven