Home > Archive > Compilers > May 2007 > QUERY regarding IR(Intermediate representation)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
QUERY regarding IR(Intermediate representation)
|
|
| manish 2007-05-08, 7:10 pm |
| Hi All,
I have a query regarding IL design. Please suggest me, which IL to
choose or referred from the following three:
A)WHIRL
B)LLVM
C)GIMPLE(gcc- tree)
If i consider the following points for IL design:
1.Source Code Information (contain only
necessary source code information)
2.Optional information for Optimization (Can be segregated from
source code information)
3.Optimizations:
(Easy for Optimizer to transform)
4.Extendibility (Vendor specific features
such as compiler directives)
5.Portability: (Should be capable to support wide
variety of hardware architecture.)
For example (Vectorization support)
6.Convertibility: (Developing IL translators should be
of manageable complexity.)
Thanks and Regards,
Manish Agarwal
| |
| manish 2007-05-10, 10:09 pm |
| On May 8, 12:31 pm, manish <manishag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have a query regarding IL design. Please suggest me, which IL to
> choose or referred from the following three:
>
If we do a comparative study between following IRs:
A) WHIRL
B) LLVM
C) GIMPLE(gcc- tree)
Then please comment on the above IRs considering following points:
1.Source Code Information (contain only
necessary source code information)
2.Optional information for Optimization (Can be segregated from
source code information)
3.Optimizations: (Easy for Optimizer to transform)
4.Extendibility (Vendor specific features
such as compiler directives)
5.Portability: (Should be capable to support wide
variety of hardware architecture.)
For example (Vectorization
support)
6.Convertibility: (Developing IL translators should be
of manageable complexity.)
Thanks and Regards,
Manish Agarwal
| |
|
|
|
|
|