Hi Seo, On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:28:56AM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > I am fine with getting rid of current GenCL if it blocks any of PyPy's > development.
It doesn't really block us. I think it's fine to spend a little time maintaining the old back-ends. In this case, it just shows that all back-ends have subtly different requirements and it's getting worse; GenPyrex or the java back-end for example don't have any clue about fully-specialized flow graphs either. Some kind of solution for this problem would involve turning the Translator into some kind of 'make' engine. The various "phases" would be described with dependencies: getting the flow graph, performing various simplifications, annotating, various more simplifications based on the annotations, typing, generating code, compiling. This needs to be fine-grained enough, because for example the typer creates a few new graphs which must again be annotated and simplified in a precise way. Internal phases of the annotator or the typer would also benefit from being described in this way. The user-visible goal would be that trying to call a method on the Translator (e.g. llvmcompile()) would figure out which phases must be run, or complain if too many phases have already been run, instead of crashing in mysterious ways if too little or too much has been done before. A bientot, Armin _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
