From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27842 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 00:44:24 -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 27835 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 00:44:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 00:44:23 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78DF19FDD6B; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:44:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:44:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Diego Novillo Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline In-Reply-To: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> 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/msg00984.txt.bz2 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Diego Novillo wrote: > First and foremost is the obvious question of whether people think that > the whole infrastructure is worth adding to GCC at all. From what we've > discussed in the past few months, the consensus seems to be that it is. Given the number and qualification of those working on tree-ssa (including many volunteers and full-time GCC hackers from at least two companies with major interest and contributions to GCC) I think the answer is "Yes". :-) > As it is today, it is impossible to build an Ada compiler with the > branch. I'm afraid that's a blocker. > 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.) > So, there clearly is much work to be done yet. A very conservative view > would be to declare the branch still not ripe for inclusion and wait for > GCC 3.6. Well, it may not be ripe now (and in fact I'm currently suffering from code generation bugs on tree-ssa), but how about four, or six, or eight weeks? >From my personal point of view, tree-ssa nearly seems be there, in terms of quality. Gerald