From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24793 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2007 14:25:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 24579 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Dec 2007 14:25:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.191) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:24:56 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so6070725fkx.8 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.145.7 with SMTP id s7mr22144664bud.6.1199111092864; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.145.6 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:24:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84fc9c000712310624i7aa01e1btc0489f71d33522cd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:40:00 -0000 From: "Richard Guenther" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC Cc: "Diego Novillo" , "Daniel Berlin" , "Mark Mitchell" , "Robert Dewar" , "Ian Lance Taylor" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Michael Matz" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4749DE66.1090602@codesourcery.com> <4756B02D.9010302@google.com> <4aca3dc20712151903r46c9eceane35edb92d08240ac@mail.gmail.com> <4aca3dc20712161712w1133fb96qd66be0e9a0bb1716@mail.gmail.com> <4766B8E5.60500@google.com> 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: 2007-12/txt/msg01198.txt.bz2 On Dec 17, 2007 9:28 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > On 12/17/07 12:51, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> I guess I'm to blame, for having na=C3=AFvely put the code out without= as > >> much as a design and goals document > > > Yes, you are. > > Wow, thanks. At least we agree on something! ;-) > > > You need to provide such a document now. > > Can't I instead provide it when it's ready? > > You know, it wasn't me who asked to have the thing developed in the > open. I didn't push it out just so that people who didn't want to > understand it could beat on it before it was ready to defend itself. > I put it out because there was an offer for contribution. Yeah - that was me... Fact is we had a discussion about debug information earlier this year from = which I took the conclusion that most people would appreciate an on-the-side representation to address the most limiting design issue of GCCs tree representation (only= one variable per SSA_NAME to track). So I had the impression you worked in that direction and offered help. Now= , you seemed to have come to the conclusion that this approach would not help your goal and started on a different route. Now the "mistake" maybe was to before starting this not to revive the former discussion based on your findings and elaborate on your goals. (I realize this is the way development for GCC works most of the time, but this is not what I consider good practice for open source development) Now - I think your goal is valid, and the choice of implementation might ev= en be the best one for it. But we (the GCC community) have not yet decided if the combination of "your goal" and "this best implementation" is what we want. (I haven't decided myself either ;)) So my suggestion for you is to continue with your implementation and produc= e a white paper about your design (which you ideally would present during the n= ext GCC summit, where we should do a discussion on this topic in some form). We (myself and Matz) will continue to implement what is "our goal" (because= we internally committed to it, and to see limitations or problems with the approach) and possibly also will present about its outcome at the summit. Thanks, Richard.