From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20420 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 03:13:53 -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 20409 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 03:13:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.libero.it) (193.70.192.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 03:13:52 -0000 Received: from bagio (151.41.184.52) by smtp1.libero.it (7.0.020-DD01) id 3F6F0E4802184537 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:14:19 +0100 Message-ID: <22e301c3dd71$1875c480$34b82997@bagio> From: "Giovanni Bajo" To: Subject: [new-ra] Development status? Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:13:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01144.txt.bz2 Hello, what's the development status for new-ra? How does it look like right now? Does it improve compile-time or code generation? On which platforms? This has been also discussed several times on IRC with mixed results, so I would like to get a complete status report for it. The point has been brought up in the tree-ssa discussion as well. I would also like to ask why there is an active development branch for new-ra. We have a few bug reports in bugzilla which are against the mainline version (-fnew-ra), which looks like to be outdated. Can the development be done on the mainline directly? Can the latest version be merged to the 3.4 branch & mainline? Also, we never consider *any* new-ra bug as regressions since it's an experimental switch for 3.4, so I guess changes can be committed there freely, without the "regression-only" policy. Thanks! Giovanni Bajo