On 10/16/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On 2012-10-16 10:43 , Richard Biener wrote: > > Diego - is PTH still live? Thus, do I need to bother about > > inventing things in a way that can be hook-ized? > > We will eventually revive PPH. But not in the short term. I think > it will come back when/if we start implementing C++ modules. > Jason, Lawrence, is that something that you see coming for the > next standard?
There are some people working on it, though not very publically. Many folks would like to see modules in the next full standard, probably circa 2017. It is likely that the design point for standard modules will differ from PPH, and so I don't think that the current PPH implementation should serve as a constraint on other work. > I suspect that the front end will need to distance itself from > 'tree' and have its own streamable IL. So, the hooks may not be > something we need to keep long term. > > Emitting the trees in SCC groups should not affect the C++ > streamer too much. It already is doing its own strategy of > emitting tree headers so it can do declaration and type merging. > As long as the trees can be fully materialized from the SCC groups, > it should be fine. -- Lawrence Crowl
