| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GCC gets a new Optimizer FrameworkGCC gets a new Optimizer FrameworkPosted May 16, 2004 12:31 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: GCC gets a new Optimizer Framework by Per_Bothner Parent article: GCC gets a new Optimizer Framework Is is "less-integrated". When you compile with GCJ to native code it uses the same front-end. But when you want to compile to JVM - it's whole other compiler! Will it be possible to make JVM just another target ? RTL was unusable for this - but what about SSA ?
(Log in to post comments)
GCC gets a new Optimizer Framework Posted May 20, 2004 9:43 UTC (Thu) by rmathew (guest, #20961) [Link] Is is "less-integrated". When you compile with GCJ to native code it uses the same front-end. But when you want to compile to JVM - it's whole other compiler! Will it be possible to make JVM just another target ? RTL was unusable for this - but what about SSA ?First off, RTL has not gone anywhere after the Tree-SSA merge - it is still there, though no longer where almost all of the optimisations are performed. Second, the actual front end remains the same whether you are compiling to native code or to a class file containing JVM bytecodes - the difference is that JVM bytecodes are generated straight from the tree representation while native code is generated after the trees are converted to RTL and generic and machine-specific optimisations performed. The main reason is that the GCC infrastructure does not directly support the notion of generating code for two different backends at the same time and it is not trivial to add support for such a thing. Another reason is probably political.
GCC gets a new Optimizer Framework Posted May 2, 2005 23:22 UTC (Mon) by plugwash (guest, #29694) [Link] yeah rms is a "Free" software zealot
how much control does he have over gcc nowadays
notice the way he was advocating self-censorship of code in that discussion linked to
|
|
||||||||||||