Hi, On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and > > should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple expression. > > very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change > the name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that > better. -object? -operand? -stuff? ;-) Will all of these splits land at trunk, i.e. 4.9? Why the hurry when not even such high-level things are clear? I mean how can you think about rearchitecting the gimple data structures without having looked at the current details. It's clear that not every detail of the design can be fixated at this point, but basic questions like "what's the operands?", "will there be expressions?", "how do we iterate?", "recursive structures or not?" should at least get some answer before really starting grind work, shouldn't they? Ciao, Michael.
