From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3766 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 17:04:18 -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 3752 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 17:04:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 17:04:16 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA14104; Mon, 22 Mar 04 12:07:45 EST Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:57:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10403221707.AA14104@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01308.txt.bz2 True, but I don't recall us stealing those bits for anything -- largely because the usage of those flags is a bloody mess. I'd rather see the work go in and tree-ssa deal with the consequences (which I really don't think will be major). That's what I would have guessed, but I'd rather see a concensus on this between you and Diego before I go ahead.