Hi all, Can we decide if the following branches have been merged, are useful enough to be merged, need more work, "maybe one day", are very outdated, or turned out just to be a plain bad idea? The numbers are the rev number of the last change. Also, what about separating in-development branches that we expect to merge or kill soon, from the branches that are for "some other idea", e.g. "effect-analysis", which may not be merged in a long while but still we may want to keep around? * 71164 abort-no-asm (fijal, cfbolz) * 70752 bridges-experimental (cfbolz) * 55732 build-external (amaury) * 63757 classdeco (benjamin) * 68723 effect-analysis (verte) * 55751 eval-loop-experiments (antocuni) * 68703 gc-arena (arigo) * 70970 gc-huge-list (fijal, arigo) * 70689 jit-profiling (pedronis, fijal) * 55472 judy-trees (fijal) * 71270 kill-can-inline (cfbolz) * 49688 newdotviewer (misto) * 64690 pypycpp (igorto) * 70786 separate-compilation (amaury) * 70024 sepcomp (xoraxax) * 66009 type-celldict (cfbolz) * 64645 unicode_filename (amaury) * 70890 unroll-safe-if-const-arg (fijal, cfbolz, arigo) Interesting to see the wide range of authors :-) A bientot, Armin.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
* 55751 eval-loop-experiments (antocuni)
"maybe one day" In this branch, I made some changes to the main eval loop and in some cases I observed speedups up to 20% (which are less relevant now that we have a jit, but still), but I never managed to reproduce them consistently. I'd like to keep it around to investigate if the changes are worth of or not. ciao, Anto
Hi Armin, On 03/23/2010 10:43 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
Maybe just have a dir parallel to "branch" called "inactive"? or some other name.
* 71164 abort-no-asm (fijal, cfbolz)
Keep around, I want to reconsider this eventually.
* 70752 bridges-experimental (cfbolz)
Same.
* 71270 kill-can-inline (cfbolz)
Same.
* 66009 type-celldict (cfbolz)
Killed this one.
* 70890 unroll-safe-if-const-arg (fijal, cfbolz, arigo)
Would keep this around, even if it ultimately didn't work. Cheers, Carl Friedrich
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
Killed
* 55472 judy-trees (fijal)
Killed
* 64690 pypycpp (igorto)
I suppose that's to-be-killed
* 70890 unroll-safe-if-const-arg (fijal, cfbolz, arigo)
I would like this to be kept around until jit is powerful enough to handle that.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
* 55751 eval-loop-experiments (antocuni)
"maybe one day" In this branch, I made some changes to the main eval loop and in some cases I observed speedups up to 20% (which are less relevant now that we have a jit, but still), but I never managed to reproduce them consistently. I'd like to keep it around to investigate if the changes are worth of or not. ciao, Anto
Hi Armin, On 03/23/2010 10:43 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
Maybe just have a dir parallel to "branch" called "inactive"? or some other name.
* 71164 abort-no-asm (fijal, cfbolz)
Keep around, I want to reconsider this eventually.
* 70752 bridges-experimental (cfbolz)
Same.
* 71270 kill-can-inline (cfbolz)
Same.
* 66009 type-celldict (cfbolz)
Killed this one.
* 70890 unroll-safe-if-const-arg (fijal, cfbolz, arigo)
Would keep this around, even if it ultimately didn't work. Cheers, Carl Friedrich
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
Killed
* 55472 judy-trees (fijal)
Killed
* 64690 pypycpp (igorto)
I suppose that's to-be-killed
* 70890 unroll-safe-if-const-arg (fijal, cfbolz, arigo)
I would like this to be kept around until jit is powerful enough to handle that.
participants (5)
-
Antonio Cuni -
Armin Rigo -
Carl Friedrich Bolz -
Maciej Fijalkowski -
William Leslie