From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17762 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 02:52:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17755 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 02:52:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 02:52:36 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA15594; Fri, 16 Jan 04 21:54:47 EST Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:52:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10401170254.AA15594@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01001.txt.bz2 My feeling on this matter is purely in the context of all those goodies promised. If the new infrastructure is really that good, and we all agree this is the "future" of GCC, I can live with some frontends not working and asking it's community to pitch in and upgrade it. That's the way I see it as well. I see the only relevant timing issue as being when the new infrastructure shows its desirability and stability by being able to host the new classes of optimizations that it was designed for. If it does, we can live with some frontends not working and even some regressions because major changes should be permitted to cause some disruptions as they are being completed. Feel free to disagree with me. But remember, they (tree-ssa advocates) promised a lot. If it turns out to be just a different infrastructure, as opposed to a better one, I wouldn't feel the same. Again, agreed. Major changes require major benefits: if all we end up doing is seeing a few percentage points either way, the tree-ssa project will have been a failure.