From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289237-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6409 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2011 08:45:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 6400 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2011 08:45:16 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:45:12 +0000
Received: by ywg8 with SMTP id 8so3660332ywg.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.189.2 with SMTP id b2mr8199604yhn.388.1302597911429; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.214.4 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110412070107.GB17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>
References: <4D9D56F4.3050203@gmail.com>	<BANLkTinA9APM95R4rf_9f93MTWeL+9MF8Q@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTingEYhTGCRdXCch78KA40KfBW58CA@mail.gmail.com>	<4D9F1D63.9010509@redhat.com>	<BANLkTi=FrbJbzkma-ySCbgGypM=wojJy4Q@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimC9NWci-ZA+dVCu70wghVJKnKFeA@mail.gmail.com>	<4DA35E74.1020506@redhat.com>	<6E9E9711-46D0-4B15-BB5D-15253EE00753@comcast.net>	<4DA3BEEA.10608@redhat.com>	<BANLkTimuX01M8XoE-CCcfd9yscgFke_yfA@mail.gmail.com>	<20110412070107.GB17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:45:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTinrxQ61-8dDhUV-FE40U9VD3npR1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gc-improv] Permanent vs function RTL obstack fix
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>, 	Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas.biveinis@gmail.com>, gcc-patches Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00841.txt.bz2

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:33:56AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> I think all these comments from you "old guys" ;-) are more
>> discouraging than fair. What Laurynas and Bernd have done, is nothing
>
> It is IMHO completely fair to point that the risks this brings in
> a huge maintainance nightmare are very high.

And IM-equally-HO it is completely unfair to talk about risks in any
situation where there is nothing yet to talk about! Give it a chance
and wait for something that's more than just an idea, and then assess
the risks based on an implementation.

Or just say "this won't fly" now so that people who would like to work
on this can turn their attention to something else. Also fine. Really.

Ciao!
Steven