On 15/4/3 下午11:00, "xue yinsong" <xyshh94...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
>Could we use a similar but more complete syntax instead?
>
>——
>Yinsong
>
>On 15/4/3 下午9:45, "Diego Novillo" <dnovi...@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On 04/02/15 11:59, xue yinsong wrote:
>>> I suppose our goal is to translate the dumped program back to
>>> the C source code (otherwise we can simply retain the gotos and
>>> labels since they are already `valid’ in C). In this case we have to
>>> convert the gotos back to if-elses and whiles. As long as
>>> CFG informations are given, it’s possible to get rid of these gotos.
>>
>>Not quite. The output of the debug dumpers is not really meant to be fed
>>back to the compiler. They are debug dumps only. They do not contain
>>enough information for code generation or analysis.
>>
>>Gimple needs a text form that can be manually or automatically
>>generated. This form needs to represent the complete state of the IL
>>needed to continue codegen/analysis/optimization.
>>
>>Ideally, one would be able to generate gimple at any arbitrary point in
>>the compilation pipeline, and also inject gimple at any arbitrary point.
>>This way, we can generate tests that exercise exactly one pass in the
>>compiler (which means, it should be able to execute exactly one analysis
>>or transformation pass, but that's another issue).
>>
>>Whether the debug dumpers end up using the gimple generation routines is
>>another question. I think in the long term, it will make sense to have
>>the debug dumpers generate output in the same syntax expected by the
>>gimple parser, however.
>>
>>
>>Diego.
