This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:17 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <email@example.com> writes:
| I would echo Gerald and Joseph's comments about regressions and
| documentation. (However IMHO, it's up to frontend maintainers to
| upgrade their bits, so Ada and g77 not working is okay with me.) I
I don't understand that argument.
If someone contributes a patch that suddenly makes a front-end
non-working, we consider that a non-starter and reject the patch
until it addresses the "non-working" bits. I do not consider it fair
to change the mainline in a disruptive way for x front-ends and says
it is x front-ends maintainers' business to make it work.
My feeling on this matter is purely in the context of all those
goodies promised. If the new infrastructure is really that good, and
we all agree this is the "future" of GCC, I can live with some
frontends not working and asking it's community to pitch in and
Feel free to disagree with me. But remember, they (tree-ssa
advocates) promised a lot.
Most of which has been delivered, or at least, is in the process of
1. Better codegen from new and improved optimizations, some easier or
only possible in an SSA framework.
Definitely true, as shown by things like SRA.
"2. Deletions of major gnarly old parts of GCC which would make
Various parts of the C expanders (which weren't pretty) have been
deleted, and other code is starting to be deleted or significantly
reworked to be much simpler.
One of the goals was to enable this to occur This goal has *certainly*
been successful. The goal of actually doing it is in process, of
It is a better infrastructure.
If it turns out to be just a different
infrastructure, as opposed to a better one, I wouldn't feel the same.
A much better one.
I'll leave it to Diego and others to post performance numbers besides
SPEC (though i'm happy to do so if necessary).