Re: [Gomp-discuss] Somethings to think about ....

[Steven Bosscher]

Op di 11-03-2003, om 01:50 schreef Diego Novillo:
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 19:27, Pop Sébastian wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:51:05PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Op ma 10-03-2003, om 23:02 schreef Pop Sébastian:
> > > >I really think that 
> > > > for the moment what we call GENERIC is what came out from C and C++ 
> > > > without 
> > > > worrying much about other languages as Fortran, Java, Ada, Pascal, ...
> > > 
> > > Well thank you very much :#
> > > 
> > I'm sorry but that was true at the moment when GENERIC was designed :-(
> > and I think we'll not end with a suitable generic IR by just including 
> > nodes as 
> > it was been done until now.  I really think we should base our work on a 
> > standard 
> > and avoid, if possible, to reinvent the wheel.
> > 
> > Sorry again Steven, I wasn't thinking bad when I wrote that statement.  I 
> > just 
> > meant that GENERIC was mostly the union of the C and C++ front ends and 
> > that its
> > conception was mostly been based on the "empiric" discovery that front-end
> > representations could be factored to a generic representation.  Here it 
> > would be
> > a good time to formalize a little this GENERIC representation.  We'll just 
> > win in 
> > the adoption of this standard, since the most of the semantics 
> > documentation would
> > be already there: the standard itself.  
> >
> Folks,
> 
> Sorry I haven't been more active, but I'm swamped with work.  I'll try
> to add my thoughts to this thread later, but I couldn't let this one
> pass.  Moving GCC to use CIL (is that the name?) will be a herculean
> task.  And that doesn't take the political aspects into account :)

I think Seb. said "a CIL front end".  I.e. like the java byte code
compiler.  CIL is the .NET byte code IIRC, and Seb. is talking about a 
CIL->native compiler.