This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Branch created for PR46489 (target macro elimination from frontends / tree optimizers)
- From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:02:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: Branch created for PR46489 (target macro elimination from frontends / tree optimizers)
- References: <20101218172128.1ngx0j2t00cc0gco-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>
> Is there sufficient interest to post the branch patches to gcc-patches as I go?
If not that could be a substantial review headache at merge time.
On 18/12/2010, Joern Rennecke <amylaar@spamcop.net> wrote:
> I have created the branch:
> svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/pr46489-20101217-branch
> to continue working on PR46489 while trunk is in slush / freeze mode.
>
> The branch does not use the usual distributed ChangeLog scheme, but a single
> ChangeLog.46489 in
> svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/pr46489-20101217-branch/gcc that has
> entries like for a patch submission. That keep our options open to
> either review the branch as a whole, or to convert the check-ins back
> into patches and submit them when 4.7 phase 1 opens.
>
> Yesterday I checked in two of the still unreviewed patches I had posted
> previously on gcc-patches.
>
> As the goal is no longer inclusion in 4.6 phase 3, but but 4.7 phase 1 or 2,
> it now makes sense to look beyond the issue of front-end instability, and
> also include further macro->hook conversions that make the design more
> consistent.
>
> In that spirit, I've checked a patch into the branch today to hookize
> INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS and its two variants into a single hook.
>
> Is there sufficient interest to post the branch patches to gcc-patches
> as I go?
>
> FWIW my current contract under which I do this work ends at the end of
> December, so I might not have much time to discuss the patches afterwards.
>
>