This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fw: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)
- From: Ayal Zaks <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:43:39 +0300
- Subject: Re: Fw: GCC 4.2 Status Report (2006-06-04)
"Richard Guenther" <email@example.com> wrote on 06/06/2006
> On 6/6/06, Ayal Zaks <ZAKS@il.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > This status report has been a long time coming, for which I
> > >
> > > As fwprop is no longer on the table for 4.2, and as the vectorizer
> > > improvements seem to have stalled due to a combination of lack of
> > > and Dorit's leave,
> > That is unfortunate. Dorit did make a sincere effort to prepare her
> > long ago (mid February) well before leaving, and Victor has been
> > pinging for reviews, ready to address them.
> Maybe you can look at some of the regressions of the vectorizer first,
> instead of
> adding new features without first addressing regressions?
> This could build up some trust that the newly added code will actually
> be maintained
> in the future.
> For a quick bugzilla search, use the 4.2 regressions link on the
> gcc.gnu.org page
> and modify it to include "-ftree-vectorize" in the bug description. I
> count 3 P1 and
> 3 P2 regressions.
<rant>This is not entirely fair.</rant>
We regretfully have been neglecting PRs recently, partly because of dorit's
leave, but in the past we have always addressed PRs and maintained our
code. During the time that PRs weren't being addressed by us we also
haven't submitted any new features to mainline. In fact, if you check,
you'll find that when the features in question were submitted (around
February), we also gave a lot of attention to PRs. Having said that, we
should and are looking into current PRs; we definitely have a strong
interest in seeing them resolved.