This thread spilled into IRC chatter. I think we stopped talking past
each other now:
(2011-03-23 12:51:34) froydnj: dnovillo: gimple gets rid of trees?
how does that work?
(2011-03-23 12:52:29) dnovillo: froydnj: we've been talking about
tuplifying more, but i don't think it makes sense past cer
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:38, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> think it would be much easier if you worked with a copy (ugh,
>> streaming trees again).
>
> I also think using same machinery for FE/gimple is a mistake. Trees are
> making
> life hard since they are interface in between FE<->gimplifier,
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > Over at the PPH branch we are starting to re-use the LTO streaming
> > routines to save front end trees. Clearly, there are things that need
> > to be extended and/or replaced since LTO streaming assumes that we are
> > in GIMPLE. However, there
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Yes, Micha has a load of patches cleaning up streaming and removing
> unecessary abstraction. So, why'd you need to share any of it?
Removing unnecessary abstraction is fine. But there is a bunch of
code that will be common, in particula
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Over at the PPH branch we are starting to re-use the LTO streaming
> routines to save front end trees. Clearly, there are things that need
> to be extended and/or replaced since LTO streaming assumes that we are
> in GIMPLE. However, there is a large i
Over at the PPH branch we are starting to re-use the LTO streaming
routines to save front end trees. Clearly, there are things that need
to be extended and/or replaced since LTO streaming assumes that we are
in GIMPLE. However, there is a large intersection that I think can be
commoned out.
- AS
