From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12447 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 02:15:56 -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 12439 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 02:15:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 02:15:55 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C8DF1824E; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:15:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33]) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014DC1824D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:15:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (hekje1.shuis.tudelft.nl [145.94.192.78]) by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0H2FsQP016635; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:15:54 +0100 (MET) Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id A143798535; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:13:22 +0100 (CET) From: Steven Bosscher To: Gerald Pfeifer , Diego Novillo Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401170313.22410.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00995.txt.bz2 On Saturday 17 January 2004 01:44, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > 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. There's very little anyone can do about this until ACT decides it is time to implement function-at-a-time. Therefore I don't think it's a blocker. Gr. Steven