>On 7/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>On 7/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You haven't explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE. >>I thought it was well explained on page: >>_http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html_ (http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html) >No, since as i said, their IR is the same as GIMPLE. You may say that but I am not the only one who says that CIL is both higher level and lower level than what we are using. IE: the _lower_ level portion is _simpler_ than GIMPLE - which _is_ what you want, is it not ? Maybe this page will make you feel more at home: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/projects/cli.html While this is a different implementation of CIL than what I suggested (since I also suggest Deputy, which needs the _other_ CIL, though perhaps it could work with this one), this one being the "Common Intermediate Language", the one I suggested is the "C Intermediate Language" it also discusses GIMPLE: CIL simplification pass Though most GIMPLE tree codes closely match what is representable in CIL, _some_ _simply_ _do_ _not_. ... Such a constrained GIMPLE format is referred as "CIL simplified" GIMPLE throughout this documentation. As I mentioned, it is your project to do your own way. I just would not want to see you spend a lot of time coding to duplicate prior work. You say you have already seen what I have suggested and want to start from scratch. OK. Rob
