This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:59:50 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Readiness of tree-ssa
- References: <200401201348.42927.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> Just as another datapoint: we've got a number of people routinely compiling
> and running applications nightly. Off the top of my head, this would be
> Gerald, Guenther (POOMA), and me, and I'm certainly missing more. As far as I
> can see none of us has had much success with tree-ssa yet.
>
> I, for one, have repeatedly been stuck with ICEs and have never been able to
> compile my library completely. Neither have my PRs been fixed overly quickly
> (not that I would be entitled to this, it's just a request since I can't test
> with a compiler that's continually broken; my latest report is PR 13681). I
> can't say anything about speed or correctness of the generated code, of
> course.
Today for the first time I was able to compile my complete POOMA based
application with tree-ssa (on a machine with a reasonable amount of memory
- 1GB was not enough until recently). If this were my first try, I'd say
"go ahead and merge" - because the remaining compile and runtime
regressions are likely to be addressed. But of course with the mixed
experience I made in the past I'm inclined to hold off the merge for some
more time.
Oh, and of course, f.i. ia64 doesn't bootstrap on the branch for quite
some time now.
Keep it going!
Richard.