This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: gp at suse dot de,wilson at tuliptree dot org,dnovillo at redhat dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>,mark at codesourcery dot com,jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:50:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
- References: <200401180714.i0I7E5VY000968@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Similarly, I believe that code reviews are important and valuable.
we certainly can't force folks to review the code, if folks are willing
to review, then the tree-ssa developers ought to embrace that feedback
and "do the right thing" based on that feedback. A code review is
made more valuable if the reviewer has the design background.
I have no problem with getting reviews of the code, or updating the
code based on that feedback. I'd like to make that abundantly clear.
I have a significant problem with some of the code not getting reviewed
for large periods of time, which is the much more likely scenario (as
unfortunate as that may be)
If you or Richard or Jason aren't the ones doing the reviews (since you
guys wrote some of the code, or originally approved some of the passes
on the tree-ssa branch, so presumably, you have no significant problem
with it), then who exactly is?
I'd rather see multiple people try to review tree-ssa all at once,
which admittedly, is a large job, but it's just as large as reviewing
There is nothing to stop different reviewers from reviewing or
commenting on different parts if it is submitted as a whole. They can
easily make comments that may be directed at specific parts that people
can clean up.
If it isn't done this way, then the likely outcome is some pieces of
tree-ssa in the mainline, some pieces waiting for review, some pieces
waiting for someone to cleanup, etc. This would mean all performance
numbers posted are invalid, and depending what *actually* gets in
before 3.5, we may or may not have severe regressions.
I just don't see how a piecemeal review and submission of this branch
is going to help anything, and I believe it is much more likely to hurt
tree-ssa and gcc than it is to help.
Now, if someone is going to guarantee that all of the pieces tree-ssa
will be reviewed in a timely manner, or at least will be reviewed and
processed before 3.5 stage1 is over, then that would go a long way
towards alleviating my concerns.