Re: [PATCH]: Code sinking patch

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

> Strongly agreed. 3% is really a good improvement which we should not

True.  That's why I didn't just say "no, wait until 4.1, go away". :-)

> overlook. Am I right in believing that, if the new optimization pass turns
> out to be really buggy, we can simply disable it and be done with it?

Yes, but that same argument would apply to any new optimization pass.

I was asked by someone whose judgement I trust to consider the patch, so 
I did.  After reviewing it, I was pleased with what I saw, but I think 
that the default position has to be to reject this patch, as it's 
clearly outside the guidelines we've set down.  What I'd be looking for 
in order to make an exception would be (a) optimizer experts who say 
that Dan's code is really good, after going over it carefully, and (b) 
nearly unanimous sentiment from everyone else that it's a good idea to 
put this in at this point, even though clearly this would be unfair, in 
that other people didn't get to put their stuff in, etc.  I'm not going 
to be *that* inconsistent without full approval of all concerned.

I don't think we've got either side of that equation at this point, and 
there have in fact been some objections to (b).

I think approval for 4.1 is a no-brainer, so I'll go ahead and do that now.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304