This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- 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: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:51:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- References: <dnovillo@redhat.com> <20021204194110.GA13428@tornado.toronto.redhat.com> <200212041946.OAA22968@makai.watson.ibm.com>
> >>>>> 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> development.
>
> 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.
I would second to this. I think we will get more motivation to resolve
the remaining important issues needed in order to make Tree-SSA useable
by default.
Honza
>
> David