Errr, how did we miss this? Ok, I'm partly to blame for the lack of transactional memory in changes.html, but something as big as getting rid of reload?!

Would it be preferable to mention IRA in the target specific x86 section instead? I figured it was an important enough change to warrant front-page coverage.

Is this OK?
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.116
diff -u -r1.116 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html 24 Apr 2013 15:14:26 -0000      1.116
+++ htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html 17 May 2013 17:49:19 -0000
@@ -143,6 +143,11 @@
        <code>-fsanitize=thread</code>. Instructions will be instrumented to
        detect data races. The ThreadSanitizer is available on x86-64
        GNU/Linux.</li>
+    <li>A new local register allocator has been implemented, which
+    replaces the 26 year old reload pass and improves generated code
+    quality on ia32 and x86-64 targets.</li>
+    <li>Support for transactional memory has been implemented on
+    selected architectures.</li>
   </ul>
 
 

Reply via email to