Thanks everyone for suggestions,
Here is my updated proposal. I know its too late but can somebody review it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2S9OoautWxsbVBkWDY3VDNkdGc/view?usp=sharing
On 25 March 2016 at 08:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 25 March 2016 at 01:15, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>
On 25 March 2016 at 01:15, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 24 March 2016 at 19:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if I
>>> have missed or misunderstood anything
>>
>> P
On 24 March 2016 at 19:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if I
>> have missed or misunderstood anything
>
> Please re-word the Abstract, it is really weird to read - I s
On March 24, 2016 6:30:29 PM GMT+01:00, David Malcolm
wrote:
>On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 14:31 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if
>> > I
>> > have missed or m
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 14:31 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if
> > I
> > have missed or misunderstood anything
>
> Please re-word the Abstract, it is really we
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have attached my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if I
> have missed or misunderstood anything
Please re-word the Abstract, it is really weird to read - I suggest to drop
any notion of RTL or "back end" and somehow me
Hi!
Here is the link my gsoc proposal, please review it. Let me know if I
have missed or misunderstood anything
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2S9OoautWxsbVBkWDY3VDNkdGc/view
Thanks and Regards,
Prasad Ghangal
On 22 March 2016 at 19:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 22 March 2016 at 16:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> How exactly can we achieve start stop compilation on specific pass (ie
>>> run single pass on input)?
>>>
>
On 22 March 2016 at 16:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> How exactly can we achieve start stop compilation on specific pass (ie
>> run single pass on input)?
>>
>> eg. $cgimple -ftree-copyrename foo.c
>>
>> should produce optimizati
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> How exactly can we achieve start stop compilation on specific pass (ie
> run single pass on input)?
>
> eg. $cgimple -ftree-copyrename foo.c
>
> should produce optimization result of -ftree-copyrename pass on foo.c input
You need p
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:43:35AM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>
>> I was observing gimple dumps and my initial findings are, to parse
>> gimple, we have to add support for following components to C
Hi!
How exactly can we achieve start stop compilation on specific pass (ie
run single pass on input)?
eg. $cgimple -ftree-copyrename foo.c
should produce optimization result of -ftree-copyrename pass on foo.c input
On 21 March 2016 at 09:05, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 0
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:43:35AM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> I was observing gimple dumps and my initial findings are, to parse
> gimple, we have to add support for following components to C FE
>
> *basic blocks
I'd think you can probably make these en
Hi!
Sorry for the late reply.
I was observing gimple dumps and my initial findings are, to parse
gimple, we have to add support for following components to C FE
*basic blocks
*gimple labels and goto
*gimple phi functions
iftmp_0_1 = PHI (ftmp_0_3, iftmp_0_4)
*gimple switch
switch
On 15 March 2016 at 20:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> Then I'd like to be able to re-construct SSA without jumping through
>>> hoops (usually you can get close but if you require copie
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 15 March 2016 at 20:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
Then I'd like to be able to re-construct SSA without jumping
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> So I am most worried about replicating all the complexity of types and
> decl parsing for the presumably nice and small function body parser.
>
> In private discussion we somewhat agreed (Micha - correct me ;)) that
> iff the GIMPLE FE would rep
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Then I'd like to be able to re-construct SSA without jumping through
>> hoops (usually you can get close but if you require copies propagated in
>> a special way you are basically lost fo
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> Then I'd like to be able to re-construct SSA without jumping through
> hoops (usually you can get close but if you require copies propagated in
> a special way you are basically lost for example).
>
> Thus my proposal to make the GSoC student at
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> > wrote:
> > > On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, D
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
This way, implementing a library that supports dealin
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> This way, implementing a library that supports dealing with GIMPLE
>>> becomes much simpler. This provides a nice fo
I would like to clear some doubts regarding project.
Basic goals in the project will be (please correct me if I am wrong):
1. Developing FE for C like gimple IR - basically by extending or
modifying C FE (I can see most are in favour of not including gimple-C
into c-family languages)
2. And ad
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:45:57PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >> This way, implementing a library that supports dealing with GIMPLE
> >> becomes much simpler. This provid
> If the gimple IR were a strict subset of GNU C, then by all means
> let's re-use the C FE. However, gimple encodes things that are
> necessary for other languages but are not C. C++ gimple dumps have
> try-finally. Fortran dumps use explicit parentheses "((x))". Surely,
> Ada adds its own quirks
On 9 March 2016 at 02:50, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> This way, implementing a library that supports dealing with GIMPLE
>> becomes much simpler. This provides a nice foundation for all kinds
>> of gimple-oriented tooling in the futur
On 03/09/2016 10:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 03/07/2016 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
So for testing specific passes, I'd much rather have an input format
for testing individual passes that:
* can be easily generated by GCC fro
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> About using the LLVM IR - similar issue I think, plus it is probably
>> too far away
>> from GCC so that what we'll end up will only look like LLVM IR but not
>> actually
>> be LL
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> About using the LLVM IR - similar issue I think, plus it is probably
> too far away
> from GCC so that what we'll end up will only look like LLVM IR but not
> actually
> be LLVM IR.
I don't think this is feasible at all, actually. As I s
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So for testing specific passes, I'd much rather have an input format
>>> for testing individual passes that:
>>>* can be easily generated by GCC from real test cases
>>>
On 03/07/2016 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
So for testing specific passes, I'd much rather have an input format
for testing individual passes that:
* can be easily generated by GCC from real test cases
* ability to turn into unit tests, which implies:
* human-readable and editabl
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > My goal for unit-testing passes is to be able to dump/reload the GIMPLE
> > IR in a form that's:
> > (A) readable by both humans and programs, and
> > (B) editable by hu
On 03/08/2016 02:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:00 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
Yes.
One difference is that in this proposal,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> My goal for unit-testing passes is to be able to dump/reload the GIMPLE
> IR in a form that's:
> (A) readable by both humans and programs, and
> (B) editable by humans
> (C) roundtrippable for some subset of the IR
> (D) can support t
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:00 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > One difference is that in this proposal, the output i
On 8 March 2016 at 21:00, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Since the goal seems to be to be able to dump/reload some kind of IR
> rather than a textual representation of GIMPLE tuples, why not
> dump/load LLVM IR? The GIMPLE=>LLVM is already implemented as a GPL
> plugin in dragonegg.
> http://llvm.or
On 8 March 2016 at 16:47, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > Isn't this what -fopt-info does?
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html
>>
>> Yes.
>
> One difference is that in this proposal, the output is emitted as a
> diagnostic, rather than to a file.
-fopt-info prints to stderr b
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:47:48AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 16:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <
> > lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > > > ...which suggests
On 03/08/2016 06:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The dumps contain a lot of (sometimes optional) unstructured
>> information. For
>> example, they show both the result of the pass and (arbitrarily
>> unstructured)
>> messages about what the pass is doing.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to get the d
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 16:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <
> lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > > ...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the
> > > > input
> > > > format to
On March 8, 2016 4:42:41 PM GMT+01:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez"
wrote:
>On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> ...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the input
>>> format to a test framework - which leads naturally to the idea of a
>>> gimple frontend.
>>
>> Assuming you mean
On 08/03/16 00:24, Trevor Saunders wrote:
...which suggests that we'd want to use gimple dumps as the input
format to a test framework - which leads naturally to the idea of a
gimple frontend.
Assuming you mean the format from -fdump-tree-* that's a kind of C like
language so argues against usi
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:33:55AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 13:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal <
> > prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 March 2016 at 21:13, Richard Biener <
> > > richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrot
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 13:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal <
> prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6 March 2016 at 21:13, Richard Biener <
> > richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll be willing to mentor this. Though I'd rather have u
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 6 March 2016 at 21:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I'll be willing to mentor this. Though I'd rather have us starting from
>> scratch and look at having a C-like input language, even piggy-backing on
>> the C frontend maybe.
>
> That's
On 6 March 2016 at 21:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I'll be willing to mentor this. Though I'd rather have us starting from
> scratch and look at having a C-like input language, even piggy-backing on the
> C frontend maybe.
That's great. I would like to know scope of the project for gsoc so
th
On March 6, 2016 3:45:37 PM GMT+01:00, Diego Novillo
wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On stackoverflow
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
>> they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
>> on
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On stackoverflow
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
> they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
> on it for gsoc.
I stopped working on GIMPLE FE a long time ago. Even th
On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 04:33:30PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On stackoverflow
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
> they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
> on it for gsoc.
Well, nobody has worked on it for a long time,
Hi!
On stackoverflow
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
on it for gsoc.
On 5 March 2016 at 03:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am interested to work on Gimple FE project for gsoc16. I woul
Hi!
I am interested to work on Gimple FE project for gsoc16. I would like
to know the scope of the project for gsoc. Also anyone like to mentor
me for the project?
Thanks and Regards,
Prasad Ghangal
51 matches
Mail list logo
