Re: [Gomp-discuss] CIL representation ...

[Pop Sébastian]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:14:38AM +0100, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> 
>  I read the CIL doc's, and this sums it up.
>  CIL doesn't have everything needed to represent a parallell program at 
> the abstract level, it got locks and mutexes and non of the dependencies 
> needed for the variables. 
I do not agree.  

12.6.7 defines volatile reads and writes that is exacltly what we have 
to deal with when OpenMP says shared variables: in other words variables 
visible across all threads.  Furthermore it defines the behaviour of an
optimizing compiler with respect to transformations on CIL.

> It's not a graph, it's a bytecode, so I think 
If you want to represent a language you end up with a graph (think at lisp).

> we can drop it as a format interesting for gomp.
> 
If you want, but probably you'll end with nodes that are specific to OpenMP 
that are not generic to represent parallel code.

I have nothing against dropping this standard, I just think that we could
win on looking at what they standardized.

        Seb