On Nov 18, 2007 10:29 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 part
On Nov 18, 2007 8:32 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a
> > priori* not acceptable for stage 3.
>
> As I parse your sentence, you were asking if your patch would b
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 th
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
>
> Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted
> compile-time
> Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you
> Kaveh> would need to provide some measurement of the impr
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a
> priori* not acceptable for stage 3.
As I parse your sentence, you were asking if your patch would be
automatically (a priori) rejected for stage3. If I say it may be
acceptabl
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted compile-time
Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you
Kaveh> would need to provide some measurement of the improvements (memory saved,
Kaveh> speed timings) so the RM
On Nov 18, 2007 7:28 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > Question is, whether this kind of rather large changes is acceptable
> > for stage 3 or not. Me, I call it a "regression fix" if it reduces
> > compile time. But I will not work
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Question is, whether this kind of rather large changes is acceptable
> for stage 3 or not. Me, I call it a "regression fix" if it reduces
> compile time. But I will not work on it now (or ask help from others)
> if it is a priori not acceptable for s
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:43:31PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The amount of duplicate work done on RTL is sometimes really amazing,
> especially since the merge of the dataflow branch. Some of the people
> who have worked on the dataflow branch had hoped that other developers
> wo
My favorite example of this lack of follow-through is gcse.c. It
computes reg-def chains and monotonic insn IDs. Guess what df-scan
provides?
This is great. I did that for combine and CSE, but I didn't know GCSE
as well. From the description from my first read I like this patch, and
I thi
On Nov 16, 2007 11:43 PM, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The amount of duplicate work done on RTL is sometimes really amazing,
> especially since the merge of the dataflow branch. Some of the people
> who have worked on the dataflow branch had hoped that other developers
>
Hello,
The amount of duplicate work done on RTL is sometimes really amazing,
especially since the merge of the dataflow branch. Some of the people
who have worked on the dataflow branch had hoped that other developers
would help with the follow-up actions to actually *use* all the
information tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
