This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "pcarlini at unitus dot it" <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:46:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
>>>>> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I see two possible scenarios regarding optimization:
Diego> (a) We merge the infrastructure with the optimizers disabled and
Diego> keep working on them in mainline. This has the advantage of
Diego> exposing the code for more testing, but it might disrupt
Diego> (b) We don't merge anything for 3.4, keep working on the branch
Diego> and merge everything for 3.5 or whenever we close the
Diego> performance gap.
Diego> Sometimes I'm more inclined towards (b), it seems safer.
I would prefer (a) because that allows Tree-SSA to be a GCC
technology preview in the GCC 3.4 release to which improvements can be
merged in during later Stages of GCC 3.4 development. We might have
enough Tree-SSA optimizations enabled by the end of Stage2/Stage3 for
Tree-SSA to be effective and useful, but it will not be abled by default
so it is safe.