From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19807 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2014 16:34:10 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19795 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2014 16:34:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f170.google.com) (209.85.223.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:34:09 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so7463097iec.15 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:34:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zgLQFZAr5jHZs1Md5zcJ7hBbWy5IVDfOMfIvD3gOQ5o=; b=TtHGIxztHE8cRRluBqydjwqtTE4p6EdS/ulo9rUAB0FAdWe7xh685b88mYTMAnQ0oM gNBF1xKTtNir6dXWMWHwkJenRNUuhp9Z8rlNKZX+ANZwbBsnHY4TpRM7lwgISt33E0zX gU4jxXSeE2I5ZZhvSFQIwOytK4H6imeYXMpdDOK6+PvCayF3gul94Nu8BdwgyXAsDoqf nn9zgoxMdvPOfSiXyvHZ3ct/x8z7Qakvb0I7LK82EwZNL6Cla05OUEy9X7sD0vidBGPa 0JzzZw84CfOjOvVIhLKEOVYfZmpe3zd11WcjRcgyg8QPcCEF5V+0nc0AT3CSgryNxV0l 8YJw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm383gZfH0dW1s8D4/Cv1nfNBDxlr+qSE6Igxl0hYfc5wGxsE23709UK9TcetsD4lFMpYVg3QMyXuRJmH0b/samPm7lbEUOaYJzJ840KkUevLxwK5fblqGQVrM6vxEfn9SvxyvaNrG309nJhvE8lmjVrrbTcw04CjcPCYlneWzjNnqTP3/5rAWwpzYIyFJVKfkiUwgH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.189.228 with SMTP id gl4mr19895225igc.22.1395160447374; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.81.35 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:34:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <51C470DB.9010203@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GCC internal re-architecture proposal From: Diego Novillo To: Richard Biener Cc: Andrew MacLeod , GCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it >> gets rejected and anyone interested can simply download the document from >> the wiki..] >> >> Over the past couple of months, I've slowly been putting together an action >> plan to help modernize GCC's source base. We've had various ideas put forth >> over the years, and a few of the more meritorious ones have been >> incorporated. My primary goal is to disentangle the front end from the >> middle/back ends, giving us better control over their data structures. >> >> The biggest challenge is having an executable plan which allows the source >> to be updated incrementally. Ie, we need a way to get from 'Here' to >> 'There' that does not impact ongoing normal activities, nor noticeably >> affect the performance of the compiler. This is a huge effort and it will >> require a large time commitment on my part to see it through. > > Sorry for following up on this old e-mail but it just occured to me that > the (unfinished) GIMPLE frontend would be a great place to bootstrap > the new and shiny GIMPLE data structures. > > Of course for it to work you need to translate that back to fat-and-old GIMPLE > and eventually finish the textual format dumping as well - not sure what > the state of the gimple frontend branch is. Work on it stalled sometime last year. I'm not sure if I would mix the re-arch work with the GIMPLE FE work. The parser will take the most benefit out of the new structure, but I think it may be better to make the front end be a sub-branch of the re-architect work so we don't conflate the two. Some work will be independent, but it will be easier to maintain both branches if they are separate. I do like the idea of tying the GIMPLE front end to the re-arch branch, however. So, making it a sub-branch of re-arch is definitely a good idea. Diego.