On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About using the LLVM IR - similar issue I think, plus it is probably > too far away > from GCC so that what we'll end up will only look like LLVM IR but not > actually > be LLVM IR. I don't think this is feasible at all, actually. As I said in my message, LLVM IR and GIMPLE are fairly different in terms of abstraction. The main goal is providing a text-based representation for GIMPLE that can be used as input into any arbitrary stage of the optimizer. This also implies other modularization efforts that allow this. Whether or not GIMPLE looks like C, or this is done piggybacking the C FE, is a different issue. I think the first issue to solve is defining GIMPLE as a full, compilable language with well formed execution and data semantics. Diego.
