Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21 March 2012 15:35, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >>> >> >> I am not sure what you expect from me. As I said many times, I have not a >> global understanding of GCC (the "global reviewers" have a much better >> global understanding than I

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 3/21/2012 11:35 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: I would be happy to help, but please understand that my understanding of GCC is restricted to gengtype, ggc, and some parts of the middle-end. I know nothing about the vast rest of the GCC compiler. Perhaps suggestions about improvements in th

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

Very well said. Discussing about modules also makes no sense. Figure out the present state. these kind of meta discussions are very rarely of value, this one is no exception IMO Richard. -- P.

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 21 March 2012 15:35, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> > > I am not sure what you expect from me. As I said many times, I have not a > global understanding of GCC (the "global reviewers" have a much better > global understanding than I do). So I cannot propose or initiate a list of > modules. > > O

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:57:08AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> Indeed.  There is also different module hierarchies that overlap.  For >> example ILs used in the different parts of the compiler. >> >> I think Basile is mostly c

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:24:54AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > wrote: > > > Sorry people, we don't have any established list of named modules. I see > > nowhere a list of one or two dozens of modules with for each of them: > > > >  * a

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Sorry people, we don't have any established list of named modules. I see > nowhere a list of one or two dozens of modules with for each of them: > >  * a name > >  * short description in one or two sentences > >  * the entire set of

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote: > Em 21/03/2012 08:58, Peter Dolding escreveu: > > >> If there is a grey area you have broken into modules wrong.  Module >> based code has no grey.  No grey equals less errors of person editing >> a file they think is exclusive to some part th

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

Em 21/03/2012 08:58, Peter Dolding escreveu: If there is a grey area you have broken into modules wrong. Module based code has no grey. No grey equals less errors of person editing a file they think is exclusive to some part that turns out to be shared with another part so causing nasty failur

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:57:08AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Indeed. There is also different module hierarchies that overlap. For > example ILs used in the different parts of the compiler. > > I think Basile is mostly confused about what files belong to what module, > a question with n

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > Indeed.  There is also different module hierarchies that overlap.  For > example ILs used in the different parts of the compiler. > > I think Basile is mostly confused about what files belong to what module, > a question with not a single

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Dolding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:39:40 +1000 >> Peter Dolding wrote: >>> >>> The top level modules already exist and are named. >> >> >> Not really. I see nowhere on the GCC site a pi

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:39:40 +1000 > Peter Dolding wrote: >> >> The top level modules already exist and are named. > > > Not really. I see nowhere on the GCC site a picture as clear as > the "plateform overview" figure on http://devel

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 + > Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> > >> >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management >> > policy (and >> > ref-countin

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Mar 19, 2012 5:56 AM, "Basile Starynkevitch" wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 + > Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > > > >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management > > > policy (and > > > ref-counting

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 + Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management > > policy (and > > ref-counting à la GTK, or à la std::shared_ptr is not enough IMHO inside a > > comp

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management > policy (and > ref-counting à la GTK, or à la std::shared_ptr is not enough IMHO inside a > compiler > because a compiler has much more complex and circular data struct

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:11:05 -0400 Robert Dewar wrote: > On 3/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > * you can name and count the modules of a software > > Well in a hierarchical system this is not so clear, since modules may > exist at different levels of abstraction. Agreed

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 3/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: * you can name and count the modules of a software Well in a hierarchical system this is not so clear, since modules may exist at different levels of abstraction. For instance in a compiler, at one level of abstraction, the front end is a

GCC 5 & modularity

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:41:56 + (UTC) "Joseph S. Myers" wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Proposed outcome > [...] > > Current architectural issues > [...] > > Not many people commented on the architectural goals document Diego and I > posted at