This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Merging tuples branch into mainline today
- From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at google dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Richard Guenther" <rguenther at suse dot de>, "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Aldy Hernandez" <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:26:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: Merging tuples branch into mainline today
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=s7IFt0aPxhFGWRboUoHhMqSfr7IZsfP2nFPWJplMBiI=; b=xlbqftH9fTByLleurfcpfD3IDXI5gSZeCKi3LaB40nrihKPnAiT0HLXgLWo5t4g3dE ecOMaVNqUQcWK1EpW1Uwul9UPFBdII37iDXV5xxSuAA7A5Gl9wrrNr75M31spt/g43QT SS3xR90fk62ajUnkU3fHkk6Xl5J7bibML/Rqk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=AfLb9iXCpw3CzHiFlfUmWHBLqfq5buq3SMlzDvE1v+K50HNZJtJh5LH0EjwzRTMOCa d9iipSfQSNNihAulFqCsFOPSrCZ0ILuYyEmiPztcfSD/CtRPJ0cnixlPXPtznWE0TUBk EcZP5IjBpWCETvfsMzOuWiJh2OBxHiEF//wF0=
- References: <4889EB4C.7070200@google.com> <6dc9ffc80807250829u20672606n8e52a76ef90df49@mail.gmail.com> <4889F467.7010108@codesourcery.com> <4889F833.3060502@google.com> <4889F940.1070209@codesourcery.com> <b798aad50807250914h402ac256lc75a94bf7b0462da@mail.gmail.com> <4889FD15.1050808@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>>> Why not fix that before merging, then?
>>
>> Because it is not a pass that is run by default, it is not receiving
>> active maintenance and the cost/benefit of doing it pre-merge is lower
>> than fixing the pass post-merge. If that is a problem, we can keep
>> delaying the merge until it's fixed, of course.
>
> Normally, we try to get major new functionality to meet the no-regression
> test before merging. However, I can see that in the case of tuples it might
> be easier for everyone to stop having to worry about tuplifying new code.
>
> I think that someone, though, should be committed to fixing this pass ASAP
> after it's checked in; waiting until late August to fix it seems bad. Is
> there someone else who can commit to working on it as a high priority after
> the main tuples checkin?
If this pass is effectively unmaintained, why not just remove it?
Unmaintained passes that are not enabled at any optimization level are
usually broken anyway.
Gr.
Steven