Re: LNO Branch merge proposal

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Jef Law writes:

Jeff> In message <200403171923.i2HJN9T35164@makai.watson.ibm.com>, David Edelsohn wri
Jeff> tes:
>> The developers of the LNO Branch, with support from Apple
>> Computer, Inc., IBM Corporation, and SUSE, plan to contribute the branch
>> for merger into mainline shortly after Tree-SSA is merged into mainline.
>> We suggest one to three weeks after Tree-SSA is merged to allow for settling
>> of that merge.

Jeff> I think it's way too soon to consider doing this.   I don't even think 
Jeff> anyone with global write privs is even working with that code right now.

Jeff> Contrast that to the tree-ssa branch where Richard, Jason, and myself are
Jeff> all actively developing code.

	If any developers with GWP want to work more actively in the LNO
branch, we would welcome it.  Richard has toyed with the
auto-vectorization and provided valuable feedback.

	LNO fundamentally is a different type of change than Tree-SSA
itself.  Tree-SSA is a conversion of the GCC infrastructure and cannot be
disabled once merged.  LNO is infrastructure built on top of Tree-SSA that
can be enabled and disabled.

	There have been many large patches developed without GWP
involvement, so I do not understand why this patch is any different.  We
specifically have developed the functionality in the branch to make it
easy for everyone to observe the development and experiment with the
branch.

	We see no benefit to delaying integration.  It will not hurt
performance or compile time.  The features have a long term commitment
from developers and their sponsors.  It allows early access to the
features.  It greatly simplifies LNO development avoiding complicated
merges by having the infrastructure maintained implicitly with mainline.

David