Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> > 3- There are several bug reports opened against the branch (92 as of
> > today).
> 
> I believe the general policy, not specific to tree-ssa, is that everything
> that is a regression of a branch compared to mainline blocks the merger of
> that branch.
> 
> (This is the direct analogon to our patch rules, where a patch with
> known regressions must not be applied. In fact, merging a branch is
> a large patch.)

And the branch merger has the additional requirements of no regressions in
the testsuite on three different CPU targets.  For this major change I
think testing with no regressions on all primary release platforms (as in
the 3.3 release criteria if no later version is available, but allowing
later versions of the operating systems since many of those listed are
obsolete, and e.g. variation in the particular GNU/Linux distributions
used with a given target triplet) would be appropriate - that covers six
CPUs.

How does compile-time performance compare to mainline?

I take it you believe that all the coding conventions are properly
followed on tree-ssa?  For example, all command-line options added are
documented, including the details of what is enabled at what -O levels
(listed both under the options themselves and under the -O options); the
documentation of trees is up to date and covers everything new about them;  
sourcebuild.texi appropriately covers the gfortran library and the
tree-ssa testsuites; passes.texi gives an accurate description of how the
compiler now operates, documenting the tree-ssa source files
appropriately; no files have copyright notices referencing "GNU CC".

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk