Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-05-04)

[Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>]

On May 4, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Dorit Naishlos wrote:

> > GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
> >
> > Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
> > that.  There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
> > according to the Wiki:
> >
> > # Autovectorization Enhancements
> > Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
>
> Items 1.4 and 2.3 are in, right Devang?

Yes.

> 2.1 depends on resolving the ssa-renaming issues that were raised in
> several threads recently (related to assigning alias sets to pointers
> created during vectorization I think?). Keith is working on this.
>
> I also realized I left out part of Item 1.3 -
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01285.html:
> "(2) Generate better code when different accesses are known to have  
> the
> same
> misalignment, even if the misalignment amount itself is unknown.   
> This part
> is deferred to stage 1.3 as it depends on:
> [item 1.4] Consider dependence distance in the vectorizer (Devang)"
> By the time Item 1.4 went in I totally forgot about this (sorry!).  
> I think
> this bit is also appropriate for stage 2 - it's really far from  
> being a
> major change. I'll be away for the next two weeks, Keith may submit  
> it as
> he may need this bit for Item 2.1 (versioning for alignment).
>
> dorit
>
>
> > # CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
> > # Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
> > # Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
> > # Structure Aliasing Part II (1.3)
> > # Profiling on Trees, gcov on Trees (1.2)
> >
> > Which of these have not yet been submitted?  For those that have not
> > been submitted, is a submission forthcoming shortly?  If not, I'm  
> > going
> > to have to drop these from the 4.1 release plan.
> >
> > Certainly, we should consider ourselves in Stage 2 at this point.
> > Significant changes are still fair game, but not *major* changes.
> > Generally, things big enough to need their own branch should now be
> > considered on hold for 4.2.
> >
> > Stage 2 was scheduled to end June 25th -- which happens to be  
> > during the
> > GCC Summit.  That doesn't seem like a good idea, so let's push it  
> > back
> > to July 8th.
> >
> > Regressions targeted at 4.1 -- but not any previous release -- number
> > "only" 80.  However, a casual look suggests that there are at  
> > least some
> > of those that should not in fact have a release target.  We do still
> > have a lot of 4.0 regressions, though, that also apply to 4.1; I  
> > would
> > encourage people to particularly target PRs that apply to both  
> > releases.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Mitchell
> > CodeSourcery, LLC
> > mark@codesourcery.com
> > (916) 791-8304

-
Devang