On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/20/13 03:02, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> Note that this, the intrusiveness of the feature and the questionable >> gain makes me question whether GCC should have support for this >> feature (and whether we really should rush this in this late). >> >> Thus, I hereby formally ask to push back this feature to 4.10. > > Sigh. I'd hoped we were making progress and Ilya could have things wrapped > up in a reasonable amount of time. But I certainly see your point of view > and I have some concerns about the semantics of the builtins now that we're > getting deeper into the bits. > > > The patches were posted long ago (back in mid Sept) and received little/no > feedback at that time. Ilya played by the rules and it was our failing as > maintainers that caused things to back up. Thus I believe the code should > be given fair consideration for inclusion into 4.9.
Note that we wouldn't get anywhere near a release if we apply this "rule". That maintainers time is not infinite is unfortunate but a fact :/ > -- > > I suspect the hardware implementation and ABI are largely set by the need to > interoperate with uninstrumented code. Where I think the patchset falls > down is in implementation details. > > Anyway, if you're going to stick with your formal request to postpone until > after 4.9, I'm not going to push hard from the other direction. Given that, > we should probably pull out the half-dozen preparatory patches that went in. For the latter I was confused by partly applying a series for a feature that hasn't been fully reviewed anyway. This shouldn't be how merging in a new feature works - you split up the feature into multiple patches to ease review, not to commit it piecewise over some weeks. Richard. > > jeff
