From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1427 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 03:12:49 -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 1420 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 03:12:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 03:12:48 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP id 23B2418268; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:12:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33]) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191D918267; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:12:48 +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 i0H3ClQP017912; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:12:47 +0100 (MET) Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id 605F398F1D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:10:16 +0100 (CET) From: Steven Bosscher To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner), ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10401170254.AA15594@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: <10401170254.AA15594@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401170410.16108.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01009.txt.bz2 On Saturday 17 January 2004 03:54, Richard Kenner wrote: > Feel free to disagree with me. But remember, they (tree-ssa > advocates) promised a lot. If it turns out to be just a different > infrastructure, as opposed to a better one, I wouldn't feel the same. > > Again, agreed. Major changes require major benefits: if all we end up > doing is seeing a few percentage points either way, the tree-ssa project > will have been a failure. I think a few percentage, or even nothing at all, is significant because of the new infrastructure that's added, and the possibilities that it opens up. That should also be taken into consideration. Gr. Steven