Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

[Matt Austern]

On Dec 1, 2003, at 8:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> It's correct that ``the gcc developers'' and National Labs will never
>>> meet.  That's because ``the gcc developers'' have no way to even
>>> accept funding, much less propose a schedule.
>>
>> Granted. The discussion has wandered far fom my original intent, which
>> was merely to find out if tree-ssa was going to become mainline. I did
>> not raise the issues of funding or contracts.
>
> I think it's the wrong question, though.  (I'll note that you also
> asked about scheduling, though perhaps that came up later.)
>
> The right question for your purposes is whether there will be a
> quality Fortran 95 release as part of gcc.  The fact that Fortran 95
> currently depends upon tree-ssa doesn't consider whether there will be
> a Fortran 95 release if the tree-ssa branch is abandoned.

Nor is the other direction guaranteed, for that matter.  It's entirely
possible (even likely, in my opinion) that we'll see an SSA-based
middle end before we see a Fortran 95 front end.

			--Matt