From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 601 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2004 19:43:36 -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 577 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 19:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 19:43:34 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0LJhUl15213; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:43:30 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0LJhQa24863; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:43:27 -0500 Received: from to-dhcp1.toronto.redhat.com (to-dhcp1.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.101]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0LJhMXd016779; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:43:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Readiness of tree-ssa From: Diego Novillo To: Wolfgang Bangerth Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Guenther , Brian Booth In-Reply-To: <200401201348.42927.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> References: <200401201348.42927.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat Canada Message-Id: <1074714197.20018.42.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:44:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01681.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:48, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > Just as another datapoint: we've got a number of people routinely compiling > and running applications nightly. Off the top of my head, this would be > Gerald, Guenther (POOMA), and me, and I'm certainly missing more. As far as I > can see none of us has had much success with tree-ssa yet. > We've been building DLV nightly and it seems to work. The last build was on Jan/17. Has it broken since then? We're having some problems building POOMA, though they seem configuration related. Brian, have you had any luck with it? > I understand and appreciate that the tree-ssa people are putting a significant > amount of work into the branch. However, I'd like to propose postponing the > merge until at least the testers inside the gcc project are reasonably happy > with the branch. Whatever they will find, we'll get as reports later anyway, > but this way we could make sure that it's fixed before it propagates to the > mainline. > Is there a PR for the problems you're having with your code? I'd like to have PRs for all the major problems people are seeing with the branch. We could then have a blocker PR that depends on all of those that we agree should be addressed before the merge or immediately after the merge. Let's face it, when we merge the branch, we expect to have some amount of fixing work to do. We can't pretend that the code will be releasable by then. But we need to make sure that we merge in a state where the problems are manageable. Thanks. Diego.