From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6089 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 23:46:54 -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 6072 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 23:46:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.79) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 23:46:52 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081ADDBB3; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08247; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i0JNkow21966; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:46:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:46:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: law@redhat.com Cc: Richard Kenner , dnovillo@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Message-ID: <20040119154650.C21678@synopsys.com> References: <10401170230.AA15232@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <200401170610.i0H6AEBX027059@speedy.slc.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200401170610.i0H6AEBX027059@speedy.slc.redhat.com>; from law@redhat.com on Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:10:14PM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01413.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:10:14PM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote: > OK. Let's take everything you've said as a given and let's ponder what > actually has been done with Ada to make it work with already existing > infrastructure mainline. Specifically function at a time mode. We've had > function at a time mode for a few years now, but yet we still have seen > little movement in the Ada front-end to support that mode. > > Given the lack of movement on that front, how can we realistically expect > any movement on something like tree-ssa? Particularly when tree-ssa > depends on function at a time mode? Well, if we go ahead and release a tree-ssa GCC, and it's a big success and clearly superior, to the point where fewer and fewer developers are left who are interested in supporting the "old" GCC, at some point point the pressure builds from knowledgeable GNAT users for a tree-ssa based implementation, and the motivation will increase to respond to that pressure. What I'm hearing is that the Ada folks don't think that going to tree-ssa and leaving them behind is a problem, so I'm willing to take them at their word. > Realistically, if we are going to make tree-ssa a complete non-starter > because the Ada front-end isn't going to work and its maintainers are > not showing any willingness to put forth the effort to make it work with > already existing infrastructure, then, well, why bother with tree-ssa > at all. I'll take my time and effort to some other non-GCC project > where I can actually make a difference. I very much want to see a tree-ssa based GCC, and delays in converting the Ada front end should not affect this (though they might require us to keep the 3.4.x infrastructure around for longer).