From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23805 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 14:05:40 -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 23791 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 14:05:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 14:05:39 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP id 76B071819A; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:05:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33]) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B20F18195; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:05:39 +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 i0HE5cQP004108; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:05:38 +0100 (MET) Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id 940889840D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:03:12 +0100 (CET) From: Steven Bosscher To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner), dje@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10401171337.AA17355@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: <10401171337.AA17355@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: <200401171503.12350.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01050.txt.bz2 On Saturday 17 January 2004 14:37, Richard Kenner wrote: > If we want to develop a GCC 3.5 release without Tree-SSA, then we > should have specific, non-SSA feature goals that we want to > accomplish. Otherwise, what is the benefit of GCC 3.5 over additional > point releases of GCC 3.4 stable branch? > > I don't understand your point. Since GCC is a volunteer project, there is > no practical way of forming such "goals" or schedules. We presume, unless > there's evidence to the contrary that people are going to be working on > improvements to GCC into the future. That is what everyone is saying every time somebody suggests we should have goals for the next release. Result: everyone just starts hacking without any form of plan, and we end up with lots of half-finished efforts. It is OK to say: "For this release our goals are...". Get a good number of people (volunteers) to agree on that, and you can make those goals. Do nothing, and nothing happens. Gr. Steven