Thanks for all the responses.
I have created a wiki page to track this proposal:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gimple-generation
It is also indexed from the main improvements wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ImprovementProjects
Thanks. Diego.
On 11/14/2012 08:13 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
We propose a simplified form using new build helper classes ssa_seq
and ssa_stmt that would allow the above code to be written as
follows.
ssa_seq q;
ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, s
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>>> ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, shadow, 0);
>>> ssa_stmt a = q.stmt (BIT_AND_EXPR, base_addr, 7);
>>> ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (shadow_type, a);
>>> ssa_stmt c = q.stmt (PLUS_EXPR, b,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> > I think consistency should trump brevity here, so also add a tree code for
>> > the converter, i.e.
>> > ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (NOP_EXPR, shadow_type, a);
>>
>> Ah, yes. This one was am
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > I think consistency should trump brevity here, so also add a tree code for
> > the converter, i.e.
> > ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (NOP_EXPR, shadow_type, a);
>
> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When we were drafting the proposal,
> Lawrence kept wond
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
> In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the specific way
> yet, and even if I do I have some
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>>
>>
>> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
>> which is hard to remember a
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, shadow, 0);
>> ssa_stmt a = q.stmt (BIT_AND_EXPR, base_addr, 7);
>> ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (shadow_type, a);
>> ssa_stmt c = q.stmt (PLUS_EXPR, b, offset);
>> ssa_stmt d = q.stmt (GE_EXPR, c, shadow);
>> ssa_s
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> They allow us to use the same name for the same actions in two
> different contexts. In particular, distinguishing between statement
> construction in SSA and non-SSA.
I don't see the difference, and I don't see where you need context data to
di
On 11/15/12, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
> In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the
> specific way yet, and even if I do I have some suggestions:
>
> > We will add a set
On 11/14/12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>>
>>
>> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
>> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> [...]
>> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
>> > or the like.
>>
>> strongly agreed.
>> [
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> [...]
> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
> > or the like.
>
> strongly agreed.
> [...]
>
> > All in all I think we can severely improve on building
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
[...]
> The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
> or the like.
strongly agreed.
[...]
> All in all I think we can severely improve on building gimple statements
> without introduction of any helper class. Basic
Hi Lawrence,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the specific way
yet, and even if I do I have some suggestions:
> We will add a set of helper classes to be used a
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
>
> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
> amount of boilerplate code that can, i
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
>
> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
> amount of boilerplate code t
17 matches
Mail list logo
