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 it now (or ask help from others) > > if it is a priori not acceptable for stage 3. ... > I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted compile-time > savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you > would need to provide some measurement of the improvements (memory saved, > speed timings) so the RM and perhaps middle-end maintainers can weigh the > risk vs benefit and make an informed decision. > > So far you've only shown us the "risky" part, i.e. the patch.
Did you read what I wrote (and you quoted)? 1. I call it a "regression fix" if it reduces compile time. [and a patch that fixes a regression should be considered for stage 3] 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a priori* not acceptable for stage 3. ["a priori" as in "don't replace the dataflow engine in our global optimizers during stage2", and "not work on" includes not spend time and effort doing testing/measurements unless I have the feeling it is worth the trouble.] Gr. Steven
