From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19511 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2002 14:26:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19500 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 14:26:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 14:26:38 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37483CC6; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D888D1C.4090605@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:26:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 03:49 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote: > ndamental data structures and algorithms completly replaced. > I think this is just as true of GDB. > > Can you expand. GCC is getting an entirely new tree representation. I don't see GDB getting anything that fundamental. > > No it isn't. > The IR is being changed, but the changes are not revolution, they are evolution, as you put it. > > This is not some major data structure change, it involves changing some enums and macro names, and changing the functions as appropriate for new semantics. > > Of course, i'm summarizing a large amount of code (I work on the branch in question every day :P) in one sentence, so someone may take issue with it. > But in terms of "how deep it goes", this is as fundamental as the changes GDB needs in the areas i mentioned. > No more, no less. > > It may seem more fundamental to someone who doesn't work on the internals of compilers, but trust me, it's not. Well that excludes me. Andrew