On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> Certainly using LLVM's textual format opens up a significant cans of worms, >> but there's some obvious (and some less than obvious) benefits. > > I also want to mention that LLVM's IR is not an equivalent of GCC's IR: > for instance, in GCC we have multi dimensional array types that are > missing in LLVM. > > Having an IR that is more readable than LLVM's would be nice.
I still like the idea of using C + extensions most. As well as making the -fdump-tree-XXX dumps (more) valid C (+ extensions). Cut & pasting from dump files to generate testcases is currently somewhat awkward, mainly due to the issue how we dump labels + goto destinations. Richard. > Thanks, > Sebastian
