On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>> Having an IR that is more readable than LLVM's would be nice.
>
> I still like the idea of using C + extensions most.
+1
> As well as making the
> -fdump-tree-XXX dumps (more) valid C (+ extensions). Cut & pasting
> from dump files to gen
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> I was hesitant to offer this option, but it's certainly a good
>>> starting point.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> I was hesitant to offer this option, but it's certainly a good
>> starting point. The representation encodes CFG, SSA, attributes,
>> declarati
On 04/03/2015 09:41 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law 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
ma
On April 3, 2015 5:41:35 PM GMT+02:00, Diego Novillo
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
C
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
>>> Could we use a similar but more complete syntax instead?
>>
>>
>> Absolu
On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong 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 tha
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong 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 chos
On 15/4/3 下午11:00, "xue yinsong" 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" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On 04/02/15 11:59, xue yinsong wrote:
>>> I suppose our goal is t
