On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> Comments or suggestions? On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher with peephole like actions? Or would you like to evolve a DSL capable of writing compiler passes? (much like MELT). I prefer keeping it simple and limit the scope to pattern matching and replacement. There will be other things to handle, however (overflow, trapping arithmetic, etc). The language will grow over time. In terms of the mini-language, I don't like the lisp syntax but I appreciate that it is a familiar language for GCC since the backend uses it extensively. Please consider testing facilities as well. We should be able to write unit tests in this language to test its syntax validation, semantic actions, and transformations. Diego.
