Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <10401170230.AA15232@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner writes:
 >    First and foremost is the obvious question of whether people think that
 >    the whole infrastructure is worth adding to GCC at all.  From what we've
 >    discussed in the past few months, the consensus seems to be that it is. 
 >    But I think it's important to find out if folks think otherwise.
 >
 >    If we decide to add SSA for 3.5, then we need to determine exactly how
 >    we are going to go about it.
 >
 >My view is that I don't see this as something we can schedule (or even
 >decide) in advance.
 >
 >As I said, I see the nature of the tree-ssa project as research rather than
 >development.  Nobody seemed to understand what I meant before, so let me
 >clarify because it's part of my answer to how I view the above issues.
OK.  Let's take everything you've said as a given and let's ponder what
actually has been done with Ada to make it work with already existing
infrastructure mainline.  Specifically function at a time mode.  We've had
function at a time mode for a few years now, but yet we still have seen
little movement in the Ada front-end to support that mode.

Given the lack of movement on that front, how can we realistically expect
any movement on something like tree-ssa?  Particularly when tree-ssa
depends on function at a time mode?

Given the lack of movement from the Ada maintainers on that front, can we
realistically consider the Ada front-end even maintained, except perhaps
in a bugfix mode?

Realistically, if we are going to make tree-ssa a complete non-starter
because the Ada front-end isn't going to work and its maintainers are
not showing any willingness to put forth the effort to make it work with
already existing infrastructure, then, well, why bother with tree-ssa
at all.  I'll take my time and effort to some other non-GCC project
where I can actually make a difference.

Jeff