This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- From: fche at redhat dot com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,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: 06 Dec 2002 14:44:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- References: <dnovillo@redhat.com> <200212041946.OAA22968@makai.watson.ibm.com>
David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> 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> development.
> [...]
>
> 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. [...]
Another possible technology preview aspect of tree-ssa is the mudflap
bounds-checking work. It demonstrates a tree-rewriting transform that
adds newish functionality, flag-controlled, to the compiler, thus not
becoming a possible performance regression. It could showcase the
value of a generic tree IR, an issue distinct from the presence of
ssa-based optimizations.
- FChE