RFC: Java inliner

Wed Jun 12 09:18:00 GMT 2002

On 2002年6月12日, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 2002年6月12日, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> > Mark Mitchell writes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I believe the right thing to do in the short term is extend the C/C++
> > > > inliner to understand the Java trees. Almost all of the tree codes
> > > > encountered will be generic tree codes defined in tree.def.
> > > 
> > > If that is true -- and if languages other than Java are actually using
> > > these tree codes -- that is fine.
> > > 
> > > The current inliner already has mechanisms for language-specific
> > > extensions. If those can be used, or it can be easily extended so that
> > > they can be used, great.
> > 
> > Okay.
> > 
> > > The contention was that the current inliner could *not* be used, and that
> > > an entirely new one had to be written.
> > 
> > Not exactly, although some of the structures used in the inliner
> > (e.g. statement expressions) aren't going to make my life very easy.
>> It shouldn't be all that difficult to get rid of the statement 
> expressions.
>> In fact, it might be the case that we can just remove the statement 
> expression wrapper right now, and it'll still just work.
> i'll check.

By this, i meant doing it the way we are doing simplification of them, 
which is to pre-insert the body of the statement expression, store the 
return value to a temporary, replace the call_expr with the temporary.
Obviously, you can't just remove the statement expression wrapper 
literally.
> > 
> > Andrew. > > 
> > 
>>>