On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 04:43:32PM +1000, Fergus Henderson wrote: > > Going to RTL at all is probably a mistake, I think -- a GCC back-end > for CIL should probably go directly from GCC trees (e.g. the new GIMPLE > tree representation, see http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/#gimple) > rather than RTL. > I asked RMS about such a feature and he doesn't want nor a CIL front-end nor a CIL back-end to GCC. :-(
However he can't stop the way GCC evolves anymore: eg. GCC2C maintained by Sun.com or Open64 that dumps the GCC's IRs via the WHIRL representation... For the moment only the C and C++ front-ends are lowered into GIMPLE. Other function-at-a-time languages will go there sooner or later. This will also provide an optimizer for CIL, and we could even imagine a CIL to CIL optimizer. Sebastian _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
