From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3373 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 00:53:20 -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 3366 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 00:53:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 00:53:19 -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 i0H0rIg09582; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:53:18 -0500 Received: from speedy.slc.redhat.com (vpn50-8.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.8]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0H0rHE08347; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:53:17 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (law@localhost) by speedy.slc.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i0H0pXpK025974; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:51:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200401170051.i0H0pXpK025974@speedy.slc.redhat.com> X-Authentication-Warning: speedy.slc.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs To: Gerald Pfeifer cc: Diego Novillo , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:44:22 +0100." From: law@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:53:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00985.txt.bz2 In message , Gerald Pfeifer writ es: >On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Diego Novillo wrote: >> First and foremost is the obvious question of whether people think that >> the whole infrastructure is worth adding to GCC at all. From what we've >> discussed in the past few months, the consensus seems to be that it is. > >Given the number and qualification of those working on tree-ssa >(including many volunteers and full-time GCC hackers from at least >two companies with major interest and contributions to GCC) I think >the answer is "Yes". :-) > >> As it is today, it is impossible to build an Ada compiler with the >> branch. > >I'm afraid that's a blocker. It could mean we disable Ada until such time as it's brought into the modern world by its maintainers. IIRC we're still waiting on Ada to support function at a time mode. jeff