This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:39:11 +0000
- Subject: Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Thank you for a reasonable and useful reply.
>
> Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Is tree-ssa going to become mainline, and if so, when under the
> > current circumstances?
> >
> > Nobody can answer that.
> >
> > For one thing, tree-ssa is a experiment, a research project. Lots of
> > work has been done on it, but lots more needs to be done. At this
> > point, it does some things well and some things not so well.
>
> And this is where the concern lies in funding tree-ssa development. If
> my goal is to have a professional-quality "free" Fortran 95 compiler,
> should I put my money and time into GCC, another project (Open64), or
> develop from scratch?
>
I'm sure that even *if* the tree-ssa 'experiment' were to fail, the
fortran 95 compiler wouldn't fail with it. It would not be impossible to
bring it onto the mainline by altering the way that it expands trees. It
wouldn't be zero work, but there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen.
I'm sure that it just so happens that the amount of work that would be
required at this time to maintain the new front end on both the branch and
the trunk isn't worth it given the level of risks involved.
This is simple risk assessment.
R.