|[19 earlier articles]|
|Re: Intermediate Representation pd@complex.Eng.Sun.COM (1990-08-15)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-08-18)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation email@example.com.OZ.AU (1990-08-20)|
|intermediate representation firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-02-20)|
|Re: intermediate representation email@example.com (1991-02-22)|
|Re: intermediate representation firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-02-23)|
|Re: intermediate representation email@example.com (1991-02-26)|
|Re: intermediate representation firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-02-27)|
|Re: intermediate representation email@example.com (1991-03-04)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Ron Guilmette)|
|Keywords:||question, optimize, design, analysis|
|Organization:||Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA|
|Date:||26 Feb 91 00:06:13 GMT|
In article <9102210223.AA15327@cyan.cs.rochester.edu> email@example.com writes:
> Actually, my fellow students and I have taken a look at the RTL dump
>produced by GCC. To our surprise, the RTL dump showed strong dependency
>on the target machine even at the earliest stage of optimization.
For what it's worth, I thought that I should mention that GCC actually
deals with two different internal representations of a program. There
is a high level representation (TREEs) and also the low-level representation
that you mentioned (i.e. RTL).
The high level representation is fairly machine independent, however it is
*not* something that you would want to try applying optimizations to.
(Well, at least GCC doesn't try to do that. Some people may say that
the high level tree representation would be a good thing to be munging
for certain "high level" optimizations. I won't argue that point either
// Ron Guilmette
// Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.