From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4619 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 01:02:55 -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 4611 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 01:02:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lon-mail-3.gradwell.net) (193.111.201.127) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 01:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 13758 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 01:02:53 -0000 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (postmaster%pop3.polyomino.org.uk@81.187.227.50) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 01:02:53 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AherV-0001sp-L8; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:02:53 +0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:02:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Gerald Pfeifer cc: Diego Novillo , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00989.txt.bz2 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