Re: RFC: Java inliner

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
> > Mark Mitchell writes:
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > > 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.
> > 
> > Okay.
> > 
> >  > The contention was that the current inliner could *not* be used, and that
> >  > an entirely new one had to be written.
> > 
> > Not exactly, although some of the structures used in the inliner
> > (e.g. statement expressions) aren't going to make my life very easy.
> 
> It shouldn't be all that difficult to get rid of the statement 
> expressions.
> 
> In fact, it might be the case that we can just remove the statement 
> expression wrapper right now, and it'll still just work.
> i'll check.

By this, i meant doing it the way we are doing simplification of them, 
which is to pre-insert the body of the statement expression, store the 
return value to a temporary, replace the call_expr with the temporary.

Obviously, you can't just remove the statement expression wrapper 
literally.

> > 
> > Andrew. > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>