On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, xue yinsong <xyshh94...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your reply to my proposal. > AFAIS, most of the files generated by -fdump-tree-all are presented in C-like > form instead > of in lisp-like tuple form. > So it’s better to implement a front end for the C-like gimple representations. > > I want to make sure if I get the idea right. > > Besides, I’m uncertain about the following questions: > 1.I suppose the syntax of the original gimple file generated by > -fdump-tree-gimple would cover > the syntax of those generated in later stages. Could some one tell me if > that’s correct?
Well - in 004t.gimple there is still no CFG and we are not in SSA form, so syntax of 'gimple' would change slightly dependent on properties of the IL. GCC goes to various lowering stages (also for things like OpenMP, nested function and exception handling support). > 2.On my computer, it seems both -fdump-tree-gimple and -fdump-tree-gimple-raw > dump the code to <filename>.004t.gimple. > tf -fdump-tree-all is used, only the result of -fdump-tree-gimple will be > presented. > Does gcc behave this way on purpose? I think so. -raw is a dump modifier while -all selects '-gimple' and all others. Richard. > > > > —— > Best regards, > Yinsong Xue >
