On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: >> >>> So, Jan Hubicka requested and approved the current spelling. >>> What now? >> >> I don't think we should hold this up. The names Jan requested seem >> reasonable enough. We seem to be running in circles here. > > I suppose I have your promise that we'll release with consistent names. > Please allocate some work hours on your side for the renaming of > cgraph_node and varpool_node for the case Honza doesn't get to it in time. > > I see all these patches with mixed feeling - it puts breaks on all developers > because they need to learn the new interface which does not bring any > immediate benefit. So I think _your_ development time would be better > spent by fixing open bugs or by tackling some of the existing scalability > issues in GCC (rather than quoting funny '0.001% faster with 99% confidence' > stuff). >
Interface cleanup will help GCC in the long run assuming it is done correctly. There will be short term churns for sure. However I think it is also important to get things right in as few steps as possible with a better/more carefully thought design. David > Thanks, > Richard. > >> >> Diego.
