From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105591-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20016 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 01:31:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20007 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 01:31:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 01:31:55 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAN1UiNk011355;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:30:44 -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 iAN1Udr17609;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:30:39 -0500
Received: from vpn83-122.boston.redhat.com (IDENT:U2FsdGVkX18wem2a4YUYLhrTR2cghZoXLoB3xAOkHgE@vpn83-122.boston.redhat.com [172.16.83.122])
	by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAN1UboS011749;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:30:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving
From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Kazu Hirata <kazu@cs.umass.edu>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <41A291BF.6040007@codesourcery.com>
References: <200411230026.iAN0QqeO005220@sirius.codesourcery.com>
	 <20041122.201559.34387675.kazu@cs.umass.edu>
	 <1101172833.24001.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <41A291BF.6040007@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Red Hat Canada
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:37:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1101173436.24001.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2

On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:26 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Yes, compile-time regressions are OK -- but let's be circumspect.  For 
> example, Nathan's bitmap patches are probably more aggressive than I'd 
> like after this goes into effect.  Things that are less far-reaching and 
> have less associated murkyness would be better.
> 
OK.  Sounds good to me.


Thanks.  Diego.