From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10415 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 03:26:46 -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 10400 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 03:26:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 03:26:46 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA15992; Fri, 16 Jan 04 22:28:57 EST Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:26:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10401170328.AA15992@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01016.txt.bz2 I think a few percentage, or even nothing at all, is significant because of the new infrastructure that's added, and the possibilities that it opens up. That should also be taken into consideration. Sure, but in that situation I feel it should stay in a branch until those "possibilities" have indeed been "opened up". Otherwise, it's a lot of extra code to maintain and overhead to pay for in compilation without any known benefit. Newer is not always better. Indeed I find that for most of the products I buy, the quality is often *far* worse than that of the same product purchased decades ago. Whether or not (and to what extent) the tree-ssa infrastructure is "significant" can't be made by arguments over possibilities it might open up, but by demonstrating those possibilities.