Re: Readiness of tree-ssa

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 15:16, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:

> > We're having some problems building POOMA, though they seem
> > configuration related.  Brian, have you had any luck with it?
> 
> Richard didn't seem too happy:
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg01545.html
> 
So, POOMA does work now, good.  I meant configuration problems,
actually.  The nightly tester we have seems to get into trouble
configuring POOMA.
> 
> > Is there a PR for the problems you're having with your code?
> 
> I gave it in my mail. It's PR 13681. Steven already analyzed it, but since 
> then it's been sitting idle.
> 
OK, thanks.


> > Let's face it, when we merge the branch, we expect to have some amount
> > of fixing work to do.  We can't pretend that the code will be releasable
> > by then.  But we need to make sure that we merge in a state where the
> > problems are manageable.
> 
> But that's exactly the point -- to figure out which state the branch it is in, 
>
We are in violent agreement.  Now, what I'd like to know is what of the
existing PRs do people consider blockers for inclusion into mainline. 
That's the consensus I want to reach.  I will try and find those that I
would like to fix prior to the merge and post them here.

Does bugzilla have a voting mechanism?  We are probably not going to fix
*all* the PRs prior to merging.  It reaches a point of diminishing
returns where we have stuff breaking because of changes in mainline
and/or enough drift to make the merge increasingly more difficult.


Diego.