Re: [patch] Lno branch merge part 3 -- ssa form updating improvements

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

> Well, and to say it bluntly:  we need something *now*, in order to be
> able to proceed with the rest of the branch merge, and we won't have
> anything else that would be sufficiently tested soon enough.

Has it been definitively decided to merge the LNO branch?

At the Summit, there were some pretty deep reservations expressed about 
some parts of the LNO branch.  I think that there needs to be some 
discussion about these issues and probably SC involvement before merging 
in all of the code.  I think that we should probably be taking advantage 
of Ken Zadeck's offer to talk about things as well.

So far, the things you've been merging in are just utilities, which 
doesn't seem like it's controversial at all.

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other; I don't know enough 
yet.  I've talked to people who think that all of the LNO branch is 
essential functionality and other people who think that at least some 
parts (like the scalar evolution code) are too experimental.  We need to 
try to find consensus here.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com