Delesley Hutchins <deles...@google.com> writes: > I can give you detailed technical reasons why GIMPLE was not working > for us if you like, but I'm not sure it would be all that > constructive.
Why wouldn't it be constructive? Even if it's impractical for gcc to change to the degree needed to fit your particular project (especially in the short term), hearing the details of how gcc's representations fell short, and how others may have done things better, seems useful. Understanding is almost always a good thing, even if it can't always be put to immediate use... Things will evolve over time (yes, even gcc!), and such input plays a very useful part in guiding this evolution. Of course, such an explanation entails work on your part, so it's understandable if you're a bit skeptical as to whether it's worth the effort, but still, in the abstract... Thanks, -Miles -- People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty weird. -- Donald Knuth
