From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10125 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 17:12:29 -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 10113 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 17:12:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 17:12:27 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2MHCQWA026378; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:12:26 -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 i2MHCQj25095; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:12:26 -0500 Received: from [10.0.0.106] (dnovillo.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.106]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2MHCOxo001037; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:12:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge From: Diego Novillo To: Richard Kenner Cc: Jeff Law , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" In-Reply-To: <10403221707.AA14104@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> References: <10403221707.AA14104@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat Canada Message-Id: <1079975502.31835.100.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:52:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01310.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 12:07, Richard Kenner wrote: > 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. > I don't feel that strongly about it. Go ahead, if you think it's a good change. I'll ping you if the merge gets too funky. Thanks. Diego.