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: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>, Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:11:28 -0500
- Subject: Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?
- References: <3FC8E44F.3050105@coyotegulch.com> <3FC9272A.4070302@specifixinc.com> <87isl2vib1.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <1070156852.1024.33.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> <20031130015502.GA15984@disaster.jaj.com> <3FC95A67.7010703@specifixinc.com> <3FC9F62A.2030309@coyotegulch.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0312011643580.55975@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
In my opinion, focusing on tree-ssa too much at this point in time will
further delay GCC 3.4, while putting too little effort into tree-ssa may
delay GCC 3.5 (or however we'll call it).
I agree. The Fortran 95 frontend, however, is only available with
tree-ssa, so any discussion of Fortran's future is tied to the viability
of tree-ssa.
(I'm saying this as someone who is regularily testing tree-ssa and
grateful to those who are devoting most of their GCC time working on
tree-ssa _and_ those who are fixing bugs on mainline for the release.)
I, too, and grateful for all the work people put in on these projects.
Which is one reason I was trying to help out a bit in my own small
way... if we could secure funding for certain projects, it would benefit
us all.
Sadly, I approached this situation from the wrong direction; I should
have approached a major vendor (and IBM or Red Hat) first as an
intermediary. Going directly to "the people" has been less effective
than I'd hoped.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing