Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>]

Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:

> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > It's correct that ``the gcc developers'' and National Labs will never
> > meet.  That's because ``the gcc developers'' have no way to even
> > accept funding, much less propose a schedule.
> 
> Granted. The discussion has wandered far fom my original intent, which
> was merely to find out if tree-ssa was going to become mainline. I did
> not raise the issues of funding or contracts.

I think it's the wrong question, though.  (I'll note that you also
asked about scheduling, though perhaps that came up later.)

The right question for your purposes is whether there will be a
quality Fortran 95 release as part of gcc.  The fact that Fortran 95
currently depends upon tree-ssa doesn't consider whether there will be
a Fortran 95 release if the tree-ssa branch is abandoned.

Personally, I have no idea.  But I note that some people have tried to
address that question in the course of this thread.

Ian