On April 3, 2015 5:41:35 PM GMT+02:00, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >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.
The other way is to reuse an existing frontend and add extensions so you can annotate stuff or use obscure middle end features. Like the C frontend. Richard. > >Diego.
