Re: [tree-ssa] Merging with bnw-simple

[Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>]

On 24 Sep 2002 17:59:21 +0200, Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> wrote:

> Op di 24-09-2002, om 16:02 schreef Diego Novillo:
>> 1- Merge the changes into tree-ssa-branch directly.  This will
>>    likely break all the current tree optimizers and mudflap.  I
>>    would commit the patch after fixing basic things like the
>>    flowgraph and DFA/SSA.  Bootstraps on the branch would likely
>>    be broken for a while until we sort everything out.
>
> Broken bootstraps are not an argument for not merging now. We still
> can't do interesting bootstraps (with SSA-any enabled) on the tree-ssa
> branch now anyway.

How would you feel about merging now vs. waiting 1-2 weeks for Diego to fix
basic things?

Advantage of merging now: Folks that don't rely on the flowgraph et al
  (i.e.  g95, mudflap) can start moving over to the new IL.

Advantage of waiting: Folks that do rely on the flowgraph et al
  (i.e. optimizers) can keep working on their optimizations.  Of course,
  they could just not update their trees until the basics are fixed, so
  this seems like a weaker argument.

>> 2- Create a new temporary branch, fix everything there and merge
>>    the changes into tree-ssa.
>
> Yet another branch, for what? There's no reason to do any work on
> the tree-ssa branch during this fixing period, it would only make
> the merge more complicated.
>
> It has already been decided to abandon SIMPLE. Better do it soon
> then, so development can go on with the new IL.

Agreed.

> BTW does Jason's IL have a name?

The name GIMPLE has been bandied about.  :)

Jason