Re: Trunk frustration

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

[...]
> And the answer is that, yes, this work probably should have been done
> on a branch.  It's goal seems to be to replace jump.c, which is great,
> but seems to me roughly equivalent to creating a brand-new optimization
> pass.

Honza started his work on the branch passes and was in the middle of
it before the policy about cvs branches was in effect.  We've
discussed privatly already this change in policy and agreed to finish
the current patches (two pending patches) and then the major work
should be done.

I hindsight, it might have been better to have used a branch...

For further changes (using the branch prediction information) I expect
that Honza will consider using a branch even if the branch might be
short-lived.  I've already discussed with him that I'll test the
result of his patches before integration on the mainline on machines
that I can access here locally (powerpc, athlon, sparc, ia64).

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj