This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unreviewed patches
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 18:57:23 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Unreviewed patches
- References: <20030530130805.GA24887@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><16089.21678.873591.577689@ongaonga.elec.canterbury.ac.nz>
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Michael Hayes wrote:
> Zdenek Dvorak writes:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-04/msg01542.html
>
> It seems like this patch foundered since the speedup required further
> substantiating. Do you have any further measurements to support your
> claims for this patch?
He does.
I'm for the patch, i wasn't thinking in terms of 0.07 seconds.
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-04/msg01569.html
>
> Again this patch foundered due to the impasse between the original
> author and yourself and the lack of a maintainer to moderate. More
> supporting evidence would have helped.
This one i have more of a problem with.
I really doubt that everyone else who uses a fibheap is wrong.
It *should* be faster, and if it *really* matters, i can do it.
I just don't see it as that big a deal when nothing currently really uses
the stuff.