>In a message dated 7/9/2007 2:37:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >On 7/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >In a message dated 7/7/2007 4:04:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Rob1weld >> writes: >> >This page http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/ has a link to this document >> http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ >> >which describes a means to obtain three-address code here >> http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ext.html#toc24 . >> >> >>2007/7/08, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >: >> >>Any specific reasons why we should? Better memory savings? Faster >> >>processing? It's not clear from your message what the advantages would >> >>be (ignoring the fact that their implementation language is completely >> >>different). >>
>You haven't explained what advantages CIL's IR has over GIMPLE. I thought it was well explained on page: _http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html_ (http://hal.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/cil001.html) Please look at this page: _http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html_ (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html) If you choose to run CIL _locally_ (not add it to GCC, but _only_ run it on your computer) then you can program in "Deputy". The Deputy language is very much like "C" but uses a few additional annotations which allow program checking when it is compiled. Deputy converts it's "C" to 'regular-C' which is processed by GCC. The result is (obviously) executable. A simple SED script can remove the annotations and leave you with 'regular-C' which can then be released as part of GCC (or you can release 'Deputy-C' with GCC and include the SED script which would process the file and produce the source for stage 1. Doing that "buys you" a better quality of code tested by CIL (and GCC) which is more likely to be correct since it is checked twice. It "costs you" having to learn a few Deputy annotations. When you have the CIL source to look at you can read the source and see if it helps you with GIMPLE that you are re-writing. You don't need to include CIL with GCC 4.3 (but you could since you don't need to learn Ocaml to compile it). The result will be better coding that looks no different and compiles without any modification to the current way of building GCC. The second link (above) may help you more. > I can't tell, but you may be under the impression GIMPLE is something > in the future. It is not. > Our IR is already GIMPLE, and a three address code simplified form of > C. We are simply talking about changing the underlying datastructures > that store it. Yes, I know GCC uses GIMPLE. >Hint: CIL's IR is almost exactly GIMPLE with alpha renaming over multiple units. >--Dan It is your project to write the way you want. You "RFC letter" said "Thoughts/comments on the proposal?". My reply is that this page:_http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html_ (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/mlrisc-ir.html) and this site: _http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html_ (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/MLRISC/Doc/html/INTRO.html) provide a better explanation of IR issues. You might also wish to read _http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/_ (http://deputy.cs.berkeley.edu/) or this one _http://www.cminusminus.org/_ (http://www.cminusminus.org/) or _http://www.nabble.com/Gnu---Lightning-f1717.html_ (http://www.nabble.com/Gnu---Lightning-f1717.html) or ... Best of luck with your project, I hope it brings a _huge_ advance to GCC. Rob
