From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128689 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2016 09:56:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 128667 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2016 09:56:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=incidentally, GCJ, love, yours X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:56:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF85DAA0B0; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink ([10.3.113.3]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1N9u2nL018286; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:56:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [JAVA PATCH] Enable more array bounds check elimination To: Roger Sayle References: <74FFBDDA-D906-470D-A7BA-559AAD71E76A@nextmovesoftware.com> Cc: java-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Andrew Haley X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56CC2CB2.8020301@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <74FFBDDA-D906-470D-A7BA-559AAD71E76A@nextmovesoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-q1/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On 22/02/16 23:02, Roger Sayle wrote: > Please point me towards any relevant postings (of yours) on the subject of > gcj bounds check elimination, as I'd love to catch up on current thinking. I'm not sure that there are any, really. The discussions I can remember were all done in person, and I didn't get positive feedback about the idea of adding to the type system in GCC's middle end. Incidentally, we have been talking about EOL for GCJ for some years now. GCC 6 will very likely be the last GCJ. Andrew.