On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:51 -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > > > In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within > > a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch, > > bitfield lowering? What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph, > > Torvald and I are looking into getting things merge read, but... > > The main problem seems to be that the TM community still hasn't formally > submitted the C++ changes to the standards committee, and are still > swinging between two alternate syntax implementations. So unless, this > gets resolved in the next month, transactional memory will have to sit > this one out. > > Torvald, is this a fair assessment?
The group working on the C++ TM specification has made progress, and I think we now have something that is basically okay for most people that are involved. Thus, I think that it would be good to include TM. Torvald
