Hi Jason and other experts,
I am reading the paper (GCC summit 2003
http://gcc.fyxm.net/summit/2003/GENERIC%20and%20GIMPLE.pdf) about GIMPLE
grammar, after reading the GCC internal doc about this topic. There are
something confusing and here I list a couple of my questions:
(1) The item for "switch-stmt" in GCC doc is different from the one in the
paper-- I guess "op1" might be stmt-list rather than NULL(in the doc) and
stmt (in the paper).
(2) The item for "arg-list" in GCC doc is different from the one in the
paper --I think the definition in the paper is correct and the one in the
doc might be wrong.
The reason is that definition in the doc allows the arg-list to lead another
call-stmt. But the GIMPLE IR should not allow that, i.e., after
GIMPLIFICATION, statement like [ foo (bar(2), 3); //extern int bar(int)]
should have been flattened to temp = bar(2); foo(temp, 3);
---------------------------------------------------
with-size-arg: addressable
| call-stmt (-----this leads to another call-stmt----)
lhs : addressable
| bitfieldref
| WITH_SIZE_EXPR (-----this leads with-size-arg------)
op0 -> with-size-arg
op1 -> val
call-arg-list: TREE_LIST
members -> lhs | CONST (------this leads to
with lhs---------)
call-stmt : CALL_EXPR
op0 -> val | OBJ_TYPE_REF
op1 -> call-arg-list (this leads to
call-arg-list)
------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
