Re: RFC: Java inliner

[Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>]

--On Wednesday, June 12, 2002 01:42:18 AM -0700 Per Bothner 
<per@bothner.com> wrote:

> 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:

I deliberately tried to avoid reopening this issue.  The whole IF_STMT
vs. COND_EXPR debate isn't relevant at this point.  We are where we are.

We could have the argument about *why* we are here again -- but I don't
think anybody cares.  Lots of people (including me) think the C/C++
representation is better; at least some people (including you) think
the Java representation is better.  That's OK.

Reopening that -- and adding fuel to the fire by talking about who did
what to whom -- just isn't productive.

> 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.

If that is true -- and if languages other than Java are actually using
these tree codes -- that is fine.

The current inliner already has mechanisms for language-specific
extensions.  If those can be used, or it can be easily extended so that
they can be used, great.

The contention was that the current inliner could *not* be used, and that
an entirely new one had to be written.  It would be better to change the
Java front end as necessary to make the current inliner usable than to
write a new one.

-- 
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com