From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4475 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 17:04:37 -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 4467 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 17:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 17:04:36 -0000 Received: from caip.rutgers.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0HH4W3K015522; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0HH4WWn015521; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:04:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:04:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200401171704.i0HH4WWn015521@caip.rutgers.edu> To: dnovillo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gp@suse.de, jsm@polyomino.org.uk, law@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com, wilson@tuliptree.org References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <200401170151.i0H1pjEn020723@caip.rutgers.edu> <1074310588.3147.153.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01073.txt.bz2 > From: Diego Novillo > > On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 20:51, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > > > But something is missing from Diego's call for discussion. I think we > > should at least expect a more thorough status report (beyond the SPEC > > numbers which appear to be a wash.) This should include tree-ssa's > > original goals and how close we are to meeting them. > > > Very good point. Thanks for bringing it up. My original goal when I > started the project was very simple: modernize GCC's optimization > infrastructure. To me that meant SSA, mostly because that's what I > brought with me from my University years. > > [...] Thanks Diego. Your explanation and that of others in this thread has really helped clarify the status of tree-ssa for me. Based on what I've heard, it sounds like you (collectively) have made terrific progress. I still think we should give high priority to some of the issues raised like regressions and documentation, but these don't have to be blockers as long as they is a commitment to address them. (Again, my mental model is the new C++ parser.) There are a lot of reasons to suggest we should merge now or real soon and at this point I'm inclined to agree with them. However I'd like to hear the perspective of our release manager as well as that of some of our global write maintainers who haven't been immersed in the branch and haven't yet spoken up before we pull the trigger on this. Thanks, --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu