From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5337 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 21:39:32 -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 5330 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 21:39:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 21:39:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 24399 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 21:39:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.105?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 21:39:31 -0000 Message-ID: <41549410.6080701@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:29:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geoffrey Keating CC: gcc List Subject: Re: attribute data structure rewrite References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01452.txt.bz2 Geoffrey Keating wrote: > As a precondition for other compile speed improvements, I've been > rewriting the way that GCC represents attributes. The result is a > medium-size patch that touches every language and many targets (a > surprising number of targets don't define any special attributes at all). > > 1. Do we think this would be acceptable for stage 3, or should I make > a branch? It might be acceptable for Stage 3 if the subsequent follow-on patches demonstrated a noticable performance improvement. It should be a branch until you can demonstrate that improvement. The final decision on acceptability will probably hinge on how mechanical the patch is: even if large, if it is quite mechanical (as I would anticipate), that will make it less worrisome. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark@codesourcery.com