From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13671 invoked by alias); 18 May 2010 14:09:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 13662 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2010 14:09:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KAM_VIAGRA3,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:09:30 +0000 Received: from wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o4IE9RCw013106 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:09:27 -0700 Received: from pzk15 (pzk15.prod.google.com [10.243.19.143]) by wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o4IE9QsW012645 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:09:26 -0700 Received: by pzk15 with SMTP id 15so3027326pzk.15 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.213.31 with SMTP id p31mr825620rvq.21.1274191765623; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.90.17 with HTTP; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Design Considerations of GIMPLE Front End From: Diego Novillo To: Michael Matz Cc: Sandeep Soni , GCC LIST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:59, Michael Matz wrote: > I don't see how that is much easier to parse compared to > =C2=A0i_1 =3D k_1 + m_1 > =C2=A0j_1 =3D func (arg1, arg2) Well, it would make the parser almost trivial to implement. But you have a point, the only structurally complex objects we need to parse are type declarations. Everything else should have very uniform syntax. > The nice thing with tuples is that there's always only one operator, and > hence no ambiguity in precedence that needs to be resolved or explicitely > encoded via a list structure. That's true. > Or is the format also intended to be able to represent GENERIC, i.e. > deeply nested structures? No, just gimple. Diego.