> GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
>
> Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
> that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
> according to the Wiki:
>
> # Autovectorization Enhancements
> Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
Items 1.4 and 2.3 are in, right Devang?
2.1 depends on resolving the ssa-renaming issues that were raised in
several threads recently (related to assigning alias sets to pointers
created during vectorization I think?). Keith is working on this.
I also realized I left out part of Item 1.3 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01285.html:
"(2) Generate better code when different accesses are known to have the
same
misalignment, even if the misalignment amount itself is unknown. This part
is deferred to stage 1.3 as it depends on:
[item 1.4] Consider dependence distance in the vectorizer (Devang)"
By the time Item 1.4 went in I totally forgot about this (sorry!). I think
this bit is also appropriate for stage 2 - it's really far from being a
major change. I'll be away for the next two weeks, Keith may submit it as
he may need this bit for Item 2.1 (versioning for alignment).
dorit
> # CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
> # Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
> # Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
> # Structure Aliasing Part II (1.3)
> # Profiling on Trees, gcov on Trees (1.2)
>
> Which of these have not yet been submitted? For those that have not
> been submitted, is a submission forthcoming shortly? If not, I'm going
> to have to drop these from the 4.1 release plan.
>
> Certainly, we should consider ourselves in Stage 2 at this point.
> Significant changes are still fair game, but not *major* changes.
> Generally, things big enough to need their own branch should now be
> considered on hold for 4.2.
>
> Stage 2 was scheduled to end June 25th -- which happens to be during the
> GCC Summit. That doesn't seem like a good idea, so let's push it back
> to July 8th.
>
> Regressions targeted at 4.1 -- but not any previous release -- number
> "only" 80. However, a casual look suggests that there are at least some
> of those that should not in fact have a release target. We do still
> have a lot of 4.0 regressions, though, that also apply to 4.1; I would
> encourage people to particularly target PRs that apply to both releases.
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (916) 791-8304
