2009/8/21 Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>: > Not to discourage you, but, eh... --
On the contrary, I think this is a very interesting idea. > wouldn't it be a much more useful > project to move RTL out of GC space completely instead of improving GC > for rtxes? The life time of RTL is pretty well defined by now and I will take a look at this. I am not too familiar with RTL passes though. > much of the unwieldly GC / GTY (and, in fact PCH) code would go away > if RTL would just live on obstacks again. Actually, unless I am missing something, there is not so much code in GC/GTY that it is there only because of RTL. The annoying features of RTL that require special care from gengtype, for example, are mostly shared with trees too. > (See for example all the GTY markers in the back ends. Most of them > are there only for PCH to get a consistent memory snap-shot, but PCHs > should be written out before any RTL is generated...) Noted. -- Laurynas
