Re: Clean up edge_def's crossing_edge field

[Caroline Tice <ctice at apple dot com>]

On Aug 18, 2004, at 4:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> On Thursday 19 August 2004 01:05, Caroline Tice wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 2004, at 3:49 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Thursday 19 August 2004 00:45, Caroline Tice wrote:
> > > > Before you commit this, if it's not already too late, you should do 
> > > > a
> > > > profiledbootstrap, with all debugging flags
> > > > turned off (you will have to edit Makefile.in).  Just to make sure
> > > > your
> > > > change doesn't mess up the hot/cold partitioning please.
> > >
> > > Actually, no, you should have fixed this long ago, when I and others
> > > asked you to.
> >
> > At the time
>
> , which was four months ago,

Yes.  As you may have noticed from the size of my update patch, I had a 
lot
of other things I had to fix as well.  If you look closely at my patch 
posting, I state
up front that I did not address *all* the concerns, and that there were 
some efficiency
concerns (yours among them) that I meant to address later.


> > you asked me to change from using a boolean field into
> > wrapping this
> > into the flags fields, I explained that I considered that to be a pure
> > matter of taste,
>
> , while others had already expressed the same concern, and the "matter
> of taste" for GCC means a flag (but then, you don't really care about
> gcc, do you?)

What others?  You were the only person I recall asking for this change?
On what basis do you assume I don't really care about gcc?

> > that there was no pressing technical reason to make such a change,
>
> , in your opinion,
>
> > and that I wanted to focus
> > first on fixing potential correctness issues.  Doing it your ways 
> > saves
> > a very modest amount of space;
>
> It is not so modest, really.  Especially if you realize that we put 
> these
> things in GC memory so making them smaller may put them in a smaller 
> page
> order, and when you think about keeping the CFG around in memory for 
> every
> function, like we're doing on the tree-profiling branch.

If this is such a major issue for you, I am surprised you didn't say 
anything about it
during the month my update patch was "out there" for review.  If this 
really is such a
huge space gain as you claim, and my changes are really so much worse 
than any of
the other numerous space-consuming changes that have been added to gcc 
recently
then I understand your desire to make this change.  But I still don't 
believe it gives you
the right to insult me.

-- Caroline Tice
ctice@apple.com