On Fri, 17 May 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
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?!
I guess I need to start being more of a nuisance again when it comes
to release notes / announcements. :-/
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.
Agreed. Two suggestions:
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>
How about making this "...quality. For now it is active on..."? The
idea is to make it explicit that this is a general change, which just
is enabled on these two architectures for now.
+ <li>Support for transactional memory has been implemented on
+ selected architectures.</li>
Do you have a list?
Okay after considering those questions. And thanks for catching
and addressing this!
Gerald
