From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15025 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 17:17:55 -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 15017 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 17:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web41106.mail.yahoo.com) (66.218.93.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 17:17:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20040117171753.36031.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.12.51.83] by web41106.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:17:53 PST Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:17:00 -0000 From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01078.txt.bz2 Hello, IMHO, releasing a compiler (3.5?) with full integration of tree-ssa branch would be a lot more palatable if we had: 1) A committment by people to fix regressions/bugs as they appear, as opposed to right at the end of the release cycle. Until a month ago, there were only really 3 or 4 people actively fixing regressions on mainline which is partly the reason branching for 3.4 has been so slow. 2) A general consensus that the mainline won't simply be abandoned once the changes get merged in. With new-ra for instance, we now have 2 register allocators, and it doesn't seem like we can get rid of either in the forseeable future (wasn't there a plan to switch fully to new-ra at some point?). 3) I don't see a particularly hurry in merging. 3.4 looks to be the most exciting GCC release in quite a while (PCH, new C++ parser, unit-at-a-time, improvements in PGO...), and it would be a pity if merging diverted resources away from it. My 2 cents (from the perspective of observer and occasional user), Dara __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus