From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21125 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 19:34:59 -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 21118 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 19:34:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout02.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 19:34:59 -0000 Received: from fwd02.aul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1AhwDC-0001bX-04; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:34:26 +0100 Received: from kolme (b7JOnmZHge69YWyDtWdzi4+KmTc4Bao2FRhivYq+bz6CQusKk8bB8S@[80.138.175.50]) by fmrl02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1AhwD3-08GqDA0; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:34:17 +0100 Received: from goofy.hamnixda.de ([192.168.100.249] helo=goofy) by kolme with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AhwCy-0000bY-00; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:34:12 +0100 Received: from richard (helo=localhost) by goofy with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AhwD0-0000sJ-00; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:34:14 +0100 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:34:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline In-Reply-To: <20040117192228.GA10154@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <20040117192228.GA10154@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Seen: false X-ID: b7JOnmZHge69YWyDtWdzi4+KmTc4Bao2FRhivYq+bz6CQusKk8bB8S@t-dialin.net X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01102.txt.bz2 On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 07:19:01PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > > Now that we are about to enter Stage 1 of 3.5, I wanted to solicit > > feedback regarding the merge of the tree-ssa branch into mainline. > > I'd like to offer another perspective, only slightly different. Some > people are concerned, rightly, about the bugs that will be caused by > merging tree-ssa for 3.5. But I'm concerned about the bugs that will > be neglected by not merging it. While I'm surely affected by these "bugs" (C++ with POOMA) and I'm looking forward to some performance improvements with tree-ssa my experience with tree-ssa for now is not so good in terms of time and memory consumption. I'd rather suggest to go for a "quick" 3.5 release with rtlopt and maybe new-ra merged, because while 3.4 is of superior quality compared to 3.3 for me, it quite seriously regressed in resulting performance. This is mainly due to the new loop-unroller which is said to be "fixed" on rtlopt branch. Tree-ssa needs to go to something like stage 3 (or at least stage 2) for some time before it looks ready for me. Just my 2 euro-cents, Richard.