On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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).
Btw, I wouldn't necessarily try to parse exactly those dump format - streamlining it for easier parsing would be ok, especially for the basic-block markers. There was a request multiple times to make it easier to adjust a function cut&pasted from a dump produced by -fdump-tree to valid C (thus accepted by gcc). One annoying road-block is how we dump labels and goto destinations. >> 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 >>
