GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

[Mark Mitchell]

This status report has been a long time coming, for which I apologize.

As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of review
and Dorit's leave, I think it's time to declare 4.2 feature-complete.

That leaves us looking at regressions.  There are lots; presently 56
P1s.  About half of those are new in 4.2.  So, we're not ready to create
a 4.2 branch.

Therefore, we need to make the mainline open for regression-fixes only
to force ourselves to attack the open bugs.  Please consider the
mainline operating under release-branch rules as of 12:01 AM Wednesday,
California time.  That will give everyone a few days to check in any
in-progress bug-fixes that are not regressions.

At this time, I don't think it makes sense to set a 4.2 target branch
date.  We have to see how fast the bug-fixing goes.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

[Daniel Berlin]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> This status report has been a long time coming, for which I apologize.
> 
> As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
> improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of review
> and Dorit's leave, I think it's time to declare 4.2 feature-complete.
> 
> That leaves us looking at regressions.  There are lots; presently 56
> P1s.  About half of those are new in 4.2.  So, we're not ready to create
> a 4.2 branch.
> 

Just FYI, I went through the ones that were ICE's in
add_virtual_operand, or otherwise look like aliasing, and quickly
checked whether they still cause ICE's without the whole used_alone stuff.

I've noted whether they do or not in the PR's.  Hopefully this will help
someone who wants to analyze them.

Re: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

[Bernd Schmidt]

Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00120.html, you wrote:
> 
>> As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
>> improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of review
>> and Dorit's leave, I think it's time to declare 4.2 feature-complete.
> 
> I am still waiting for review of by auto-increment patches, and for Berndt
> to complete the cross-jump part struct-equiv patches, so that I can post an
> updated patch for the if-conversion part.

At this point I think it's better to wait for 4.3.  I like neither of 
the current proposed solutions - mine costs too much compile time, while 
yours is too much of a hack.  A while back I did some CSiBE testing that 
did not show enough benefit for the loss of compile time.  We need to 
figure out something better.


Bernd

Re: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

[Mark Mitchell]

Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00120.html, you wrote:
> 
>> As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
>> improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of review
>> and Dorit's leave, I think it's time to declare 4.2 feature-complete.
> 
> I am still waiting for review of by auto-increment patches, and for Berndt
> to complete the cross-jump part struct-equiv patches, so that I can post an
> updated patch for the if-conversion part.

Depending on how quickly that goes, and how quickly other things go,
those things may or may not make 4.2.  We'll have to take it case by case.

> The patch queue also includes some patches for bugs that are not
> strictly speaking regressions.

As usual, I think we should permit the inclusion of already submitted
patches.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)

[Joern RENNECKE]

In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00120.html, you wrote:

> As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
> improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of review
> and Dorit's leave, I think it's time to declare 4.2 feature-complete.

I am still waiting for review of by auto-increment patches, and for Berndt
to complete the cross-jump part struct-equiv patches, so that I can post an
updated patch for the if-conversion part. 

> That leaves us looking at regressions.

The patch queue also includes some patches for bugs that are not strictly speaking regressions.