merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:

| >>>>> Diego Novillo writes:
| 
| Diego> I see two possible scenarios regarding optimization:
| 
| Diego> (a) We merge the infrastructure with the optimizers disabled and
| Diego> keep working on them in mainline.  This has the advantage of
| Diego> exposing the code for more testing, but it might disrupt
| Diego> development.
| 
| Diego> (b) We don't merge anything for 3.4, keep working on the branch
| Diego> and merge everything for 3.5 or whenever we close the
| Diego> performance gap.
| 
| Diego> Sometimes I'm more inclined towards (b), it seems safer.
| 
| 	I would prefer (a) because that allows Tree-SSA to be a GCC

Since (a) depends on acceptance of GIMPLE and GENERIC, which are
invasive and quite not yet mature, I would prefer (b) given the
other invasive works already scheduled for 3.4.

-- Gaby