Hi, That means that articles and manuals that I have seen are theories and in practice, any of c/c++/java front ends use GENERIC. Thank you very much Andrew. ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> À : charfi asma <charfiasma@xxxxxxxx> Cc : gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Envoyé le : Mercredi, 24 Juin 2009, 14h41mn 47s Objet : Re: Re : Re : Generation of GENERIC tree charfi asma wrote: I wrote: > charfi asma wrote: >> > >> I am interested too in the GENERIC tree >> I compile hello.cpp using g++ >> -fdump-tree-all, I do not get a generic intermediate representation, >> there was (.tu, .class, .original, .gimple, .vcg ...) >> To look at the GENERIC tree, I >> compile hello.java using gcj (as mentioned in the answer bellow: "I >> recommend looking at any gcc frontend other than the C/C++ frontends >> to see how it is done....") >> But when I compile java file using >> the same option (fdump-tree-all) I do not get .generic as I expect.. >> Before .gimple, gcj generate only .original > > That's right. gcj transforms its front-end trees straight into GIMPLE. I > can't see any purpose to going via GENERIC. > > but gcc manual 2008, gcc internals 2008, many articles and figures in GCC summit 2006, 2007 and 2008 talk about GENERIC ? They do. > did C front end call the function c_genericize or not ? It does. However, as far as I can tell it converts to GIMPLE, not GENERIC. I can't see the point of GENERIC. Andrew.
