On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So, Jan Hubicka requested and approved the current spelling. >>>> What now? >>> >>> I don't think we should hold this up. The names Jan requested seem >>> reasonable enough. We seem to be running in circles here. >> >> I suppose I have your promise that we'll release with consistent names. >> Please allocate some work hours on your side for the renaming of >> cgraph_node and varpool_node for the case Honza doesn't get to it in time. >> >> I see all these patches with mixed feeling - it puts breaks on all developers >> because they need to learn the new interface which does not bring any >> immediate benefit. So I think _your_ development time would be better >> spent by fixing open bugs or by tackling some of the existing scalability >> issues in GCC (rather than quoting funny '0.001% faster with 99% confidence' >> stuff). >> > > Interface cleanup will help GCC in the long run assuming it is done > correctly. There will be short term churns for sure. However I think > it is also important to get things right in as few steps as possible > with a better/more carefully thought design.
I agree. There is no reason to change things just to change them. Richard. > David > >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> >>> Diego.