From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1835 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2004 19:56:35 -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 1812 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2004 19:56:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO igw3.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2004 19:56:34 -0000 Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.41]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i2HJuSK59544; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:56:28 -0500 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.7/8.11.7-01-14-2004) with ESMTP id i2HJuSu18636; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:56:28 -0500 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0/03-06-2002) with ESMTP id i2HJuRT27032; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:56:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200403171956.i2HJuRT27032@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: law@redhat.com cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: LNO Branch merge proposal In-Reply-To: Message from law@redhat.com of "Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:38:28 MST." <200403171938.i2HJcSi1009506@speedy.slc.redhat.com> References: <200403171938.i2HJcSi1009506@speedy.slc.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:06:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00993.txt.bz2 >>>>> Jef Law writes: Jeff> In message <200403171923.i2HJN9T35164@makai.watson.ibm.com>, David Edelsohn wri Jeff> tes: >> The developers of the LNO Branch, with support from Apple >> Computer, Inc., IBM Corporation, and SUSE, plan to contribute the branch >> for merger into mainline shortly after Tree-SSA is merged into mainline. >> We suggest one to three weeks after Tree-SSA is merged to allow for settling >> of that merge. Jeff> I think it's way too soon to consider doing this. I don't even think Jeff> anyone with global write privs is even working with that code right now. Jeff> Contrast that to the tree-ssa branch where Richard, Jason, and myself are Jeff> all actively developing code. If any developers with GWP want to work more actively in the LNO branch, we would welcome it. Richard has toyed with the auto-vectorization and provided valuable feedback. LNO fundamentally is a different type of change than Tree-SSA itself. Tree-SSA is a conversion of the GCC infrastructure and cannot be disabled once merged. LNO is infrastructure built on top of Tree-SSA that can be enabled and disabled. There have been many large patches developed without GWP involvement, so I do not understand why this patch is any different. We specifically have developed the functionality in the branch to make it easy for everyone to observe the development and experiment with the branch. We see no benefit to delaying integration. It will not hurt performance or compile time. The features have a long term commitment from developers and their sponsors. It allows early access to the features. It greatly simplifies LNO development avoiding complicated merges by having the infrastructure maintained implicitly with mainline. David