Re: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Diego Novillo
On 04/02/15 11:59, xue yinsong wrote: I suppose our goal is to translate the dumped program back to the C source code (otherwise we can simply retain the gotos and labels since they are already `valid’ in C). In this case we have to convert the gotos back to if-elses and whiles. As long as CFG

FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread xue yinsong
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

Re: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/03/2015 07:45 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On 04/02/15 11:59, xue yinsong wrote: I suppose our goal is to translate the dumped program back to the C source code (otherwise we can simply retain the gotos and labels since they are already `valid’ in C). In this case we have to convert the goto

Re: FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Diego Novillo
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

Re: FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Jeff Law
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

Re: FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Diego Novillo
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

Re: FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Richard Biener
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

RE: Combine changes ASHIFT into mult for non-MEM rtx

2015-04-03 Thread Kumar, Venkataramanan
Hi Bing, Yes I am planning to continue it after stage 1 opens. Regards, Venkat. -Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Bin.Cheng Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 7:16 AM To: Jeff Law Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Combine changes ASHIFT

Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Gry Gunvor
Gcc melt already advertises that it allows access to the internals: http://gcc-melt.org/ ; I have not tried it yet. This is of course not the same as a format that can be exported and then imported again, but it is attempting to get a similar result. (1) Can anyone comment on the quality/usabilit

Re: FW: Question about Gimple FE

2015-04-03 Thread Jeff Law
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