From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5665 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2011 16:49:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 5557 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2011 16:48:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:48:53 +0000 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49042) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2REq-0007tB-5v for gcc@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:48:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2REj-0007xy-O7 for gcc@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:48:47 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:35031) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2REj-0007xc-EP for gcc@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:48:45 -0400 Received: from hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.13]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p2NGmiA4015276 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:48:44 -0700 Received: from vws2 (vws2.prod.google.com [10.241.21.130]) by hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p2NGmgNm005661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:48:43 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so5976449vws.6 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.125.68 with SMTP id x4mr1544047vcr.244.1300898921641; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.16.129 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110323163858.GA13705@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20110323163858.GA13705@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pph] Adapting LTO streaming for front end AST saving From: Diego Novillo To: Jan Hubicka Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc@gnu.org, Jan Hubicka , Lawrence Crowl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 74.125.121.67 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> think it would be much easier if you worked with a copy (ugh, >> streaming trees again....). > > I also think using same machinery for FE/gimple is a mistake. =C2=A0Trees= are making > life hard since they are interface in between FE<->gimplifier, part of gi= mple, > interface for RTL expansion and way we represent debug info. Yes, but this is only part of the common machinery. I'm actually more interested in the other functionality. Keeping string tables, symbol tables, file sections, ability to stream shared pointers by creating references, etc. As gimple gets rid of trees, we can transition that code into the front end. The common code that remains, we can add hooks so each user implements its own functionality. > Those are not neccesarily related things and tying them together makes > things harder to optimize & cleanup. No, that's not the intent. I simply want to re-use common code. We will have streamers for debug info, and passes have their own streamers. PPH is adding another streamer in the front end. All I'm looking for is to have a set of common streaming code I can use. > I would rather see well define Gimple bitcode rather than designing common > format to handle PCHs, LTO and external templates on the top of existing = trees. In as much as gimple is still using tree codes, those would remain in common code. As gimple gets rid of trees, we handle those in the front end. So, I don't think that will be a problem. Diego.