This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: df.c and partial writes/REG_EQUAL notes
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: df.c and partial writes/REG_EQUAL notes
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:28:29 -0400
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,<m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>, <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- References: <Pine.BSF.email@example.com>
Gerald Pfeifer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > You want no more than 2 bitmap implementations in the compiler,
>> and want it replaced all at once, which is another questionable idea.
>> This was your "review".
> Please. As a user and co-developer (even though I mostly do web pages,
> not optimizations) I'd really like to see GCC improve.
> And your (Daniel's, RTH's, Jan's,...) work all has the same common goal.
> Not all of us agree all of the time, whether on technical or procedural
> grounds, but please let's not forget that overall goal and let's try
> working *together*.
I disagree that his approach is the correct one, that is all.
I also disagree that he really provided a review of the patch. As others
have pointed out in private mail, it lacked some documentation.
Had he really provided a review of the patch, I would know this,and
also would have a good idea what would
probably be necessary to make it acceptable to someone else who also
felt richard's approach is incorrect (of which there are a few).
In other words, his review was in no way helpful to making the patch
Saying "I don't think we need 3 bitmap implemenations" is not a
review of a patch.
It is a statement of his opinion on a related issue.
Same with "I will take your work and fashion it into a replacement for
bitmap.c some day".
Overall direction and whatnot of the compiler is not controlled by
richard, it's controlled by the steering committee.
The above was not written in spite, or sarcasticly.
I'm simply stating what he claims was a review of the patch, which i
respectfully disagree it was.
He commented on no specific part of the patch.
> I'd really like to see you/Daniel's improvements that you/he mentioned
> when we discussed the inlining issue (and that has the potential to
> greatly help code like the one I'm working on in my day job) become
> part of GCC.
> I hope this bitmap issue doesn't become a stumbling stone on our way
> towards our common goal of improving GCC.
"I decided to leave and go to California, so I packed up my
Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying
to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch, and I headed for the
highway and began hitching. Within three minutes I got picked
up by one of those huge trailer trucks carrying 20 brand new
cars. I climbed up the side of the cab and opened the door.
The guy said, "I don't have much room up here, why don't you get
into one of the cars out back." So I did. And he was really
into picking people up because he picked up 19 more. We all had
our own cars. Then he went 90 miles per hour and we all got