Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 08:31, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     If we are to wait for all the possible optimizations (vectorization,
>     memory hierarchy, loop transformations, etc) to be contributed, we may
>     have to wait quite a bit longer than if we included the infrastructure
>     in mainline.
> 
> My threshold wouldn't be "all possible optimizations", but enough of
> them to show that the new infrastructure not only is going to meet its
> expectations but that it isn't going to need to continue to evolve in
> major ways.
> 
Fair enough.  You bring up a good point about stability in the
infrastructure.  I do not think that we will see any major changes now. 
Perhaps transparent changes that largely don't affect major interfaces. 
> To me, merely saying that "this is obviously a better approach since
> it's more modern and is what the textbooks show" would be a *disadvantage*
> of the approach.  We need to see evidence that this approach really is better.
> 
We've shown some in this thread.  When the discussion dies down, I will
follow up with a summary so that we can hopefully make a decision at
that point.  If there's anything in particular you would be interested
to see, please let me know.


Thanks.  Diego.