On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, 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? >> >> >> Absolutely. The initial attempt for gimple fe was to use a tuple-based >> syntax that is very easy to parse. But that was only chosen because it >> simplifies parsing. >> >> You first need to design a text representation for the IL that allows >> conveying all the elements needed to instantiate the in-memory >> representation of gimple. > > Crazy idea, what about something that's modeled after LLVM's representation?
I was hesitant to offer this option, but it's certainly a good starting point. The representation encodes CFG, SSA, attributes, declarations and annotations. It has a relatively fixed syntax, which makes it easy to parse. Diego.
