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

[Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>]

> 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.
>
> 2- Create a new temporary branch, fix everything there and merge
>    the changes into tree-ssa.
>
> I am partially in favor of option #1.  It would stop new development
> for a while, but it would avoid the potentially continuous pain
> of having to fix code that targets the old IR.
>
> I will spend the next 1-2 weeks merging the code in my local
> tree.  Maybe the breakage is not as severe as I think.  But the
> new IR will likely break g95, mudflap and the optimizers.
>
> Opinions?

I'd go for #1. There's going to be major breakage, so we may as well get it 
over with. G95 builds are currently broken anyway. My only reservation is 
that we should make sure the new representation is definitely what we want 
_before_ merging with tree-ssa. I'd hate to have to do this sort of 
conversion twice.

Might this also be a convenient opportunity to seperate out LI functions 
such as deep_copy_node, and create_tmp_var from c-simplify.c?

Paul Brook