From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 869 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2012 02:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 859 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2012 02:31:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,SARE_LWSHORTT,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com (HELO smtp12.dentaku.gol.com) (203.216.5.74) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:30:58 +0000 Received: from 61.245.22.233.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([61.245.22.233] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) (envelope-from ) id 1SL3ce-0008Cd-5U; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:30:56 +0900 Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2F4C9DFB7; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:30:55 +0900 (JST) From: Miles Bader To: Delesley Hutchins Cc: Andrew Pinski , Diego Novillo , gcc , Ollie Wild , Le-Chun Wu Subject: Re: Announce - Thread safety annotations no longer supported in GCC References: <4F901DEA.1060401@google.com> System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Delesley Hutchins's message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:30:09 -0700") Message-ID: <87ty0fb0dc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00727.txt.bz2 Delesley Hutchins writes: > I can give you detailed technical reasons why GIMPLE was not working > for us if you like, but I'm not sure it would be all that > constructive. Why wouldn't it be constructive? Even if it's impractical for gcc to change to the degree needed to fit your particular project (especially in the short term), hearing the details of how gcc's representations fell short, and how others may have done things better, seems useful. Understanding is almost always a good thing, even if it can't always be put to immediate use... Things will evolve over time (yes, even gcc!), and such input plays a very useful part in guiding this evolution. Of course, such an explanation entails work on your part, so it's understandable if you're a bit skeptical as to whether it's worth the effort, but still, in the abstract... Thanks, -Miles -- People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty weird. -- Donald Knuth