Thanks for all the responses.
I have created a wiki page to track this proposal:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gimple-generation
It is also indexed from the main improvements wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ImprovementProjects
Thanks. Diego.
On 11/14/2012 08:13 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
We propose a simplified form using new build helper classes ssa_seq
and ssa_stmt that would allow the above code to be written as
follows.
ssa_seq q;
ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, s
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>>> ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, shadow, 0);
>>> ssa_stmt a = q.stmt (BIT_AND_EXPR, base_addr, 7);
>>> ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (shadow_type, a);
>>> ssa_stmt c = q.stmt (PLUS_EXPR, b,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> > I think consistency should trump brevity here, so also add a tree code for
>> > the converter, i.e.
>> > ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (NOP_EXPR, shadow_type, a);
>>
>> Ah, yes. This one was am
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > I think consistency should trump brevity here, so also add a tree code for
> > the converter, i.e.
> > ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (NOP_EXPR, shadow_type, a);
>
> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When we were drafting the proposal,
> Lawrence kept wond
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
> In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the specific way
> yet, and even if I do I have some
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>>
>>
>> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
>> which is hard to remember a
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> ssa_stmt t = q.stmt (NE_EXPR, shadow, 0);
>> ssa_stmt a = q.stmt (BIT_AND_EXPR, base_addr, 7);
>> ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (shadow_type, a);
>> ssa_stmt c = q.stmt (PLUS_EXPR, b, offset);
>> ssa_stmt d = q.stmt (GE_EXPR, c, shadow);
>> ssa_s
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> They allow us to use the same name for the same actions in two
> different contexts. In particular, distinguishing between statement
> construction in SSA and non-SSA.
I don't see the difference, and I don't see where you need context data to
di
On 11/15/12, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
> In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the
> specific way yet, and even if I do I have some suggestions:
>
> > We will add a set
On 11/14/12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>>
>>
>> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
>> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> [...]
>> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
>> > or the like.
>>
>> strongly agreed.
>> [
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> [...]
> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
> > or the like.
>
> strongly agreed.
> [...]
>
> > All in all I think we can severely improve on building
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
[...]
> The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
> or the like.
strongly agreed.
[...]
> All in all I think we can severely improve on building gimple statements
> without introduction of any helper class. Basic
Hi Lawrence,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
In principle I agree with the goal, I'm not sure I like the specific way
yet, and even if I do I have some suggestions:
> We will add a set of helper classes to be used a
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
>
> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
> amount of boilerplate code that can, i
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:13:12PM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
>
>
> Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
> which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
> amount of boilerplate code t
Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal.
Generating gimple and tree expressions require lots of detail,
which is hard to remember and easy to get wrong. There is some
amount of boilerplate code that can, in most cases, be reduced and
managed automatically.
We will add a
18 matches
Mail list logo
