Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: >> Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted >> compile-time >> Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes.
Yes, we have, and I continue to believe that's reasonable. If the patches provide compile-time improvements, then I think they would count as "bug fixes" and thus be potentially acceptable in Stage 3. Thus, to answer Steven's implied question: > But I will not work on it now (or ask help from others) > if it is a priori not acceptable for stage 3. I think the answer is that the patch is not a priori unacceptable. But, given that we're talking about a relatively large change, I think the bar should be set higher than for a change to just a few lines of code. In particular, I would want to see that there is, in fact, measurable improvement to compile-time -- whereas in Stage 1, we might just approve the patch on the grounds that it moves us towards the infrastructure that we want to be using throughout the compiler. I would also want a relevant maintainer to carefully review the patch. It might be that even though we think the patch is likely to be correct, either that maintainer, or I, decide that there's too much associated risk. So, I don't want to promise that we would accept the patch in Stage 3, either. Steven, I recognize that might not be as definitive an answer as you would like, but I hope you will understand my thinking. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
