Hi Tobias, > what is the difference you see between ISL AST generation and code > generation?
By “ISL AST generation”, I mean ISL AST generation without generation of GIMPLE code. > What are your plans to separate the ISL AST generation? Do you foresee any > difficulties/problems? According to the plan mentioned in my proposal, I wanted to get more familiar with ISL AST generation by generation of ISL AST in a file, which is separate from the GCC sources. This could help to avoid problems with interpretation and verification of results, because I worked with my own input to ISL AST generator instead of the input built by Graphite from GIMPLE code. This could also help to avoid rebuilding of GCC in the process of debugging. However, I've come to the conclusion that the way you advised me is better, because it helps to save the time of integration of ISL AST generation in GCC. I've set up a second code generation in parallel that generates ISL AST and can be enabled by a command line flag. Could you please advise me how to verify the results of this generation? Below is the code of this generation. -- Cheers, Roman Gareev
code
Description: Binary data
