This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Limits of stage3 changes
On Nov 18, 2007 7:28 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > Question is, whether this kind of rather large changes is acceptable
> > for stage 3 or not. Me, I call it a "regression fix" if it reduces
> > compile time. But I will not work on it now (or ask help from others)
> > if it is a priori not acceptable for stage 3.
...
> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted compile-time
> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you
> would need to provide some measurement of the improvements (memory saved,
> speed timings) so the RM and perhaps middle-end maintainers can weigh the
> risk vs benefit and make an informed decision.
>
> So far you've only shown us the "risky" part, i.e. the patch.
Did you read what I wrote (and you quoted)?
1. I call it a "regression fix" if it reduces compile time.
[and a patch that fixes a regression should be considered for stage 3]
2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is
*a priori* not acceptable for stage 3.
["a priori" as in "don't replace the dataflow engine in our global
optimizers during stage2", and "not work on" includes not spend time
and effort doing testing/measurements unless I have the feeling it is
worth the trouble.]
Gr.
Steven