Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Saturday 03 December 2005 20:43, Mark Mitchell wrote: | > There is one advantage I see in the LTO design over LLVM's design. In | > particular, the LTO proposal envisions a file format that is roughly at | > the level of GIMPLE. Such a file format could easily be extended to be | > at the source-level version of Tree used in the front-ends, so that | > object files could contain two extra sections: one for LTO and one for | > source-level information. The latter section could be used for things | > like C++ "export" -- but, more importantly, for other tools that need | > source-level information, like IDEs, indexers, checkers, etc. | | I actually see this as a disadvantage. | | IMVHO dumping for "export" and front-end tools and for the optimizers | should not be coupled like this.
I'm wondering what the reasons are. | Iff we decide to dump trees, then I | would hope the dumper would dump GIMPLE only, not the full front end | and middle-end tree representation. | | Sharing a tree dumper between the front ends and the middle-end would | only make it more difficult again to move to sane data structures for | the middle end and to cleaner data structures for the front ends. Why? -- Gaby
