From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3837 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2009 18:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 3829 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2009 18:06:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:06:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495A610553; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:06:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF218104AB; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:06:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MBurI-0006p2-QA; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:06:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Richard Guenther , Andrew MacLeod , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [trunk<-vta] Re: [vtab] Permit coalescing of user variables Message-ID: <20090603180640.GA24784@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Richard Guenther , Andrew MacLeod , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <4A24114D.1000006@redhat.com> <84fc9c000906020254pff2d5a8hc00f022996e7384b@mail.gmail.com> <4A25CE20.3020102@redhat.com> <84fc9c000906030318i9e3f0dfx3735490450f2875e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 02:43:27PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Sure enough, if VTA goes in and becomes default and can't be disabled, > the options cease to make much sense. We can remove them then, when and > if it happens. But since so far there's no indication that VTA is > actually going in, rejecting this patch on the grounds of an unwarranted > assumption comes off as very odd to me. So, just make the switch flipped by whatever bit of GCC decides VTA is enabled? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery