Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>>> Merging the branch may have to wait until after GDB 6.1.
>>>
>>> This process is looking like gcc, which is probably an improvement.
>>> Develop on the branch; verify no regressions; then merge.
>>
>>
>> Careful, GCC is currently faceing an SSA mega-merge.
> 
> 
> Um, except again, we are verifying no regressions in test results, plus no serious (>5%) regressions in compile time or execution time.
> You also forgot that the code has already been reviewed by global maintainers who were working on the branch, and will again be design reviewed before committing to the main branch.
> Plus it includes both high-level design, and user-level documentation
> Finally, the merge in question, plus the document describing the merge and it's criteria, was explicitly approved by the GCC Steering Committee.

Yes, I know, and it is all good news.  However, that doesn't diminish 
the projects problems: the shear size of the branch, the number of 
dedicated full time resources currently been consumed, the constant 
schedule slip, ...

>>   A strategy, reminiscent of the HP merge, is not one we want to encourage here.
> 
> The HP merge was completely different than the above.
> It seems like you are trying to degrade gcc here by comparing the SSA merge to the HP merge, which is clearly a dumb comparison.
> Just because certain gdb people screwed that merge up by not requiring more doesn't mean GCC will do the same, as evidenced by the above.

A comparison is reasonable (and it isn't ment to degrate SSA or GCC). 
If the HP merge were to have been handled correctly it would have turned 
into a project of size and logistics comparable to SSA.  That, I think, 
is getting out of control.

As I said:

>>  Haveing said that short lived branches for experimentation are a good idea.

Andrew