From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6987 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 16:32:40 -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 6969 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 16:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 16:32:38 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA13548; Mon, 22 Mar 04 11:36:04 EST Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:30:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10403221636.AA13548@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: dnovillo@redhat.com Subject: Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01305.txt.bz2 So, you aren't willing to help with merge conflicts? I am once the merge occurs, but there's no rush in doing this cleanup, so if it would be simpler to wait until after the merge, it's best to do so: there's no point in undertaking extra work unnecessarily in doing it twice. I don't like to have too many source directories around. The other day RTH was asking if it was due to disk space limitations and the answer is no: it's due to "brain space" limitations. It's just too easy to get confused and test in one directory and check in from another when there are large numbers of trees around, at least for me. I already have three source trees and at least a half dozen object directories for different targets for each.