This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Merging with bnw-simple
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Date: 24 Sep 2002 17:59:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Merging with bnw-simple
- References: <20020924140250.GA25658@tornado.toronto.redhat.com>
Op di 24-09-2002, om 16:02 schreef Diego Novillo:
> 1- Merge the changes into tree-ssa-branch directly. This will
> likely break all the current tree optimizers and mudflap. I
> would commit the patch after fixing basic things like the
> flowgraph and DFA/SSA. Bootstraps on the branch would likely
> be broken for a while until we sort everything out.
Broken bootstraps are not an argument for not merging now. We still
can't do interesting bootstraps (with SSA-any enabled) on the tree-ssa
branch now anyway.
> 2- Create a new temporary branch, fix everything there and merge
> the changes into tree-ssa.
Yet another branch, for what? There's no reason to do any work on
the tree-ssa branch during this fixing period, it would only make
the merge more complicated.
It has already been decided to abandon SIMPLE. Better do it soon
then, so development can go on with the new IL.
BTW does Jason's IL have a name?
> I will spend the next 1-2 weeks merging the code in my local
> tree. Maybe the breakage is not as severe as I think. But the
> new IR will likely break g95, mudflap and the optimizers.
I'm in favor of option #1. I just hope the new IL itself will not change
all the time after the merge.