> "Sjodin, Jan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi I am new to GCC development and I have a few questions about LTO. > > What has been done since the last status report in January? I would > > also like to know what is most important to work on right now to make > > progress on LTO (e.g. type system, intermediate representation, > > reader/writer). What remaining work needs to be done to make LTO work > > for C? In the old status report a few things were mentioned: the front > > end was not complete, the type system was not being fully encoded and > > there are still some things that need to be explicitly represented in > > the IR. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:43 AM > To: Sjodin, Jan > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Information about LTO> My take on it. Others may feel differently. > > Some langhooks have been removed. Removing langhooks one way or > another is an important step in permitting the middle-end to work > independently of any frontend. > > The gimple-tuple proposal has been made and people have started to > work on it. The goal here is to modify the IR to reduce memory > requirements. > > No work has been done on the reader/writer; it has been delayed by the > dataflow work. > > It is not clear to what extent we need to fully define a middle-end > type system. We may be able to get away with simple structural > equivalence for now rather than a more formal approach. > > Ian >
Does LTO have any hard dependencies on the gimple-tuples? I imagine the on-disk representation could be separate from any internal representation. I am curious if the two efforts can be worked on in parallel and how well they can be separated, since the gimple-tuple project seems like a big effort also. Jan
