Re: Enable SSA at -O0

[Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> > As it is a basic requirement for the things that are not ready yet it
> > makes it more difficult to get them developed for the stage1 of 4.5.
> > Basically everyone relying on SSA at -O0 has at the same time the
> > obligation of making SSA at -O0 happen.  Honza spent quite some
> > amount of time fixing all the bugs SSA at -O0 uncovered, so it would
> > be unfair to not include this change both for him and for the people
> > that pushed him to do this as they need this change for future
> > development (ok, that's me mostly, and eventually Diego or Andrew
> > for RTL expansion work).
> 
> I don't see this argument, whether we should do something or not
> at a particular time should be based on a sound technical analysis
> of whether it is a good idea, you can't argue for doing something
> that is not a good idea on the grounds of fairness to someone who
> has worked on it.

Sure.  The technical perspective is that the patch is ready, it
was tested both as required for GCC patches and further with the
GDB testsuite and with using it for debugging of GCC itself.  The
solution is technically sound (otherwise it wouldn't have been
approved), the outcome is an improvement in terms of GCC infrastructure.

So - if the FUD card is played - what do you expect as further technical
arguments in favor of such a patch?  I have no chance than trying to
convice the uncertain party with more "handwaving" arguments to
disregard their doubts.  So, your comment isn't constructive here
either.

Richard.