public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
@ 2004-03-22 16:34 Richard Kenner
  2004-03-22 17:45 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2004-03-22 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc

The usage of static_flag and unsigned_flag is a real mess. The documentation
of for which nodes these are used in tree.h is wrong and most macros don't
attempt any checking.

This needs to be cleaned up and I'm willing to do it but would like to know
if doing so will disrupt the tree-ssa merge process.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
  2004-03-22 16:34 Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge Richard Kenner
@ 2004-03-22 17:45 ` Diego Novillo
  2004-03-22 18:33   ` law
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-03-22 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Kenner; +Cc: gcc

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 09:01, Richard Kenner wrote:

> This needs to be cleaned up and I'm willing to do it but would like to know
> if doing so will disrupt the tree-ssa merge process.
>
It probably will, because we have several modifications in tree.h. 
Would you be willing to apply your patch to tree-ssa at the same time?


Thanks.  Diego.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
  2004-03-22 17:45 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2004-03-22 18:33   ` law
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: law @ 2004-03-22 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: Richard Kenner, gcc

In message <1079968973.31835.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Diego Novillo wri
tes:
 >On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 09:01, Richard Kenner wrote:
 >
 >> This needs to be cleaned up and I'm willing to do it but would like to know
 >> if doing so will disrupt the tree-ssa merge process.
 >>
 >It probably will, because we have several modifications in tree.h. 
 >Would you be willing to apply your patch to tree-ssa at the same time?
True, but I don't recall us stealing those bits for anything -- largely
because the usage of those flags is a bloody mess.  I'd rather see the
work go in and tree-ssa deal with the consequences (which I really don't
think will be major).

jeff


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
  2004-03-22 18:57 Richard Kenner
@ 2004-03-22 21:52 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-03-22 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Kenner; +Cc: Jeff Law, gcc

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 12:07, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     True, but I don't recall us stealing those bits for anything -- largely
>     because the usage of those flags is a bloody mess.  I'd rather see the
>     work go in and tree-ssa deal with the consequences (which I really don't
>     think will be major).
> 
> That's what I would have guessed, but I'd rather see a concensus on this
> between you and Diego before I go ahead.
>
I don't feel that strongly about it.  Go ahead, if you think it's a good
change.  I'll ping you if the merge gets too funky.


Thanks.  Diego.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
@ 2004-03-22 18:57 Richard Kenner
  2004-03-22 21:52 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2004-03-22 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: law; +Cc: gcc

    True, but I don't recall us stealing those bits for anything -- largely
    because the usage of those flags is a bloody mess.  I'd rather see the
    work go in and tree-ssa deal with the consequences (which I really don't
    think will be major).

That's what I would have guessed, but I'd rather see a concensus on this
between you and Diego before I go ahead.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
  2004-03-22 18:30 Richard Kenner
@ 2004-03-22 18:45 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-03-22 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Kenner; +Cc: gcc

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 11:36, Richard Kenner wrote:

> I am once the merge occurs, but there's no rush in doing this cleanup,
> so if it would be simpler to wait until after the merge, it's best to do so:
> there's no point in undertaking extra work unnecessarily in doing it twice.
> 
OK.  That works too.


Thanks.  Diego.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
@ 2004-03-22 18:30 Richard Kenner
  2004-03-22 18:45 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2004-03-22 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dnovillo; +Cc: gcc

    So, you aren't willing to help with merge conflicts?

I am once the merge occurs, but there's no rush in doing this cleanup,
so if it would be simpler to wait until after the merge, it's best to do so:
there's no point in undertaking extra work unnecessarily in doing it twice.

I don't like to have too many source directories around.  The other day RTH
was asking if it was due to disk space limitations and the answer is no: it's
due to "brain space" limitations.  It's just too easy to get confused and
test in one directory and check in from another when there are large numbers
of trees around, at least for me.  I already have three source trees and
at least a half dozen object directories for different targets for each.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
  2004-03-22 18:21 Richard Kenner
@ 2004-03-22 18:27 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2004-03-22 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Kenner; +Cc: gcc

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 10:28, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     Would you be willing to apply your patch to tree-ssa at the same time?
> 
> I don't currently have that branch checked out or have set up testing
> procedures for it, so I think that would be a bad idea.
>
So, you aren't willing to help with merge conflicts?


Diego.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
@ 2004-03-22 18:21 Richard Kenner
  2004-03-22 18:27 ` Diego Novillo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2004-03-22 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dnovillo; +Cc: gcc

    Would you be willing to apply your patch to tree-ssa at the same time?

I don't currently have that branch checked out or have set up testing
procedures for it, so I think that would be a bad idea.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-22 17:12 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-22 16:34 Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge Richard Kenner
2004-03-22 17:45 ` Diego Novillo
2004-03-22 18:33   ` law
2004-03-22 18:21 Richard Kenner
2004-03-22 18:27 ` Diego Novillo
2004-03-22 18:30 Richard Kenner
2004-03-22 18:45 ` Diego Novillo
2004-03-22 18:57 Richard Kenner
2004-03-22 21:52 ` Diego Novillo

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).