From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2769 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 16:10:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2759 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 16:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 16:10:33 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.7] (account dberlin [192.168.1.7] verified) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.4) with ESMTP-TLS id 6066716; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:10:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <403C2E96.8050409@gnu.org> References: <20040225035109.83E2F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <403C2E96.8050409@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1C4B9E16-67AD-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain From: Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:10:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>> Merging the branch may have to wait until after GDB 6.1. >> This process is looking like gcc, which is probably an improvement. >> Develop on the branch; verify no regressions; then merge. > > Careful, GCC is currently faceing an SSA mega-merge. Um, except again, we are verifying no regressions in test results, plus no serious (>5%) regressions in compile time or execution time. You also forgot that the code has already been reviewed by global maintainers who were working on the branch, and will again be design reviewed before committing to the main branch. Plus it includes both high-level design, and user-level documentation Finally, the merge in question, plus the document describing the merge and it's criteria, was explicitly approved by the GCC Steering Committee. > A strategy, reminiscent of the HP merge, is not one we want to > encourage here. The HP merge was completely different than the above. It seems like you are trying to degrade gcc here by comparing the SSA merge to the HP merge, which is clearly a dumb comparison. Just because certain gdb people screwed that merge up by not requiring more doesn't mean GCC will do the same, as evidenced by the above. > Haveing said that short lived branches for experimentation are a good > idea. > > Andrew > >