From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89128-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24513 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 17:40:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24501 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 17:40:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 17:40:21 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (account dberlin [192.168.1.7] verified)
  by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.4)
  with ESMTP-TLS id 5871122; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:40:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1074359645.5368.48.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>
References: <10401170324.AA15949@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1074309907.3147.139.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <20040117134753.GA14621@deneb.enyo.de> <42BD9D55-48FC-11D8-AECF-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401171651120.9549@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <1074359645.5368.48.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <342B8C56-4914-11D8-9EA8-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
 "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
 "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:40:00 -0000
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01083.txt.bz2

> Absolutely.  These are the kinds of basic cleanup activities I had in
> mind when I requested peer review and suggested a way of breaking up 
> the
> changes.
>

These are just cleanups that are required before merging to the 
mainline.
I still don't think trying to break up all of tree-ssa and it's 
individual passes and submitting them makes any sense at all.

Unless we are talking about peer review simply for cleanups, and not 
for design issues.
In which case it's a matter of us looking through it ourselves for 
cleanups and whatnot we missed and pointing them out to each other.

I'd seriously rather not go about rehashing the design tradeoffs.

>
> Thanks.  Diego.
>