2014-05-09 17:42 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/09/14 04:36, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:45 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05/08/14 02:17, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right. Richi explicitly wanted the entire set approved before staging >>>>>> in >>>>>> any of the bits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought it would be useful to have approved codes in the trunk to >>>>> reveal some possible problems on earlier stages. It also requires >>>>> significant effort to keep everything in consistency with the trunk >>>>> (especially when big refactoring happens) and having some parts >>>>> committed would be helpful. Will keep it in a branch for now but let >>>>> me know if you change your mind :) >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand -- my preference would to be go go ahead with the stuff >>>> that's >>>> already been approved, mostly for the reasons noted above. But with >>>> Richi >>>> wanting to see it go in as a whole after complete review I think it's >>>> best >>>> to wait. While we could argue back and forth with Richi, it's not a >>>> good >>>> use of time. >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't there a git or svn branch for MPX, including run-time library, >>> so that people can take a look at the complete MPX change and try >>> MPX today as NOP? The only extra requirement is MPX enabled >>> binutils. >> >> >> That would indeed be useful. > > Agreed. The ability to checkout the branch, build it and poke at how it > handled certain things would be incredibly helpful.
We have such branch and instructions on how to use it on Wiki. It has not been updated for a while though. I'll sync the branch with my working tree. Ilya > > Jeff