On Nov 18, 2007 10:29 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the answer is that the patch is not a priori unacceptable.
>
> But, given that we're talking about a relatively large change, I think
> the bar should be set higher than for a change to just a few lines of
> code. In part
On Nov 18, 2007 8:32 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a
> > priori* not acceptable for stage 3.
>
> As I parse your sentence, you were asking if your patch would b
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>> Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted
>> compile-time
>> Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes.
Yes, we have, and I continue to believe that's reasonable. If the
patches provide compile-time improvements, then I think th
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
>
> Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted
> compile-time
> Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you
> Kaveh> would need to provide some measurement of the impr
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> 2. But *I will not work on it* now (or ask help from others) if it is *a
> priori* not acceptable for stage 3.
As I parse your sentence, you were asking if your patch would be
automatically (a priori) rejected for stage3. If I say it may be
acceptabl
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> I think the answer is "maybe". In the past we have counted compile-time
Kaveh> savings as appropriate for stage3 regression fixes. However IMHO you
Kaveh> would need to provide some measurement of the improvements (memory saved,
Kaveh> speed timings) so the RM
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 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 s
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:43:31PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The amount of duplicate work done on RTL is sometimes really amazing,
> especially since the merge of the dataflow branch. Some of the people
> who have worked on the dataflow branch had hoped that other developers
> wo
My favorite example of this lack of follow-through is gcse.c. It
computes reg-def chains and monotonic insn IDs. Guess what df-scan
provides?
This is great. I did that for combine and CSE, but I didn't know GCSE
as well. From the description from my first read I like this patch, and
I thi
On Nov 16, 2007 11:43 PM, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The amount of duplicate work done on RTL is sometimes really amazing,
> especially since the merge of the dataflow branch. Some of the people
> who have worked on the dataflow branch had hoped that other developers
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
