From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8855 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2010 22:00:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 8837 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2010 22:00:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (212.99.106.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:00:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57B7CB023F; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1XrkiwIJbXC; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new-host.home (ADijon-552-1-89-120.w92-148.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.148.136.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD844CB0202; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Bernd Schmidt Subject: Re: Combine four insns Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Mitchell , Richard Guenther , David Daney , Andi Kleen , Steven Bosscher References: <4C5C20D0.5020105@codesourcery.com> <201008190938.07217.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4C6D6BEC.1020700@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4C6D6BEC.1020700@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201008192359.35178.ebotcazou@adacore.com> 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: 2010-08/txt/msg01512.txt.bz2 > As for the patch itself, Michael Matz provided constructive feedback > which led to a heuristic that eliminated a large number of combine-4 > attempts. I conclude that either you didn't read the thread before > attempting once again to block one of my patches, or the above is more > than a little disingenuous. It isn't, I replied to your message saying "I experimented with Michael's heuristic last week, without getting useful results, so I'll use the one I previously posted" so I genuinely thought you were discarding the heuristic altogether. Glad to hear this isn't the case in the end. As to again blocking one of your patches, there is nothing personal, you happened to post 3 patches in a row that I think aren't the right approach to solving problems in the part of the compiler I'm responsible for. For the first one, I agreed to step down, for the second one you checked in something without approval but the end result was sensible, but for the third one you were about to set a precedent that wasn't acceptable to me. -- Eric Botcazou