From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5767 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2010 16:37:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 5754 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2010 16:37:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TW_LV,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:36:57 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8837CB0074 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o39Gatj8025810 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:36:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:44:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: dragonegg in FSF gcc? Message-ID: <20100409163655.GA25781@bromo.med.uc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 What are the opinions here about merging dragonegg into FSF gcc? It is in the odd position of straddling two projects so perhaps it could reside in both the LLVM and FSF gcc projects with regularly remerging. Certainly it would be an interesting addition to FSF gcc. For instance, without even attempting to target gfortran, in the last year, the llvm code performance has improved about 15% for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-April/030800.html For the darwin target, this would be a particularly big win since we would gain access to the llvm LTO. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jack