On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 14:32, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>> Regarding this particular patch, I hope it can be checked in to make >>>> the test clean. It is a simple enhancement to a wheel that is already >>>> there. It also serves as a case that can be referenced in the future >>>> when the more general mechanism is available. >>> Just to be clear, I'm not going to object to this patch; I don't have >>> the time right now to really look at it. >>> >>> I was merely raising the issue that we have a need to solve the larger >>> problem and that we need to be looking a the bigger picture. >> >> Agreed. I'm not happy about the patch, but I won't object to it. >> It's clear, however, that we cannot keep adding hack on top of hack >> here. > > I don't think I have added too many pattern handling (aka Hack) since > the predicate aware analysis was checked in -- this is actually the > first attempt to try to do predicate simplification. Things like this > is a natural course of software evolution. > >> David, will you be looking at creating a more general solution >> for 4.7? > > I think it is a good area to explore, not necessarily by me though. > >> >> Given the stage we are in, you will need OKs from our release managers for >> 4.6. >> > > Richard, if it is too late for 4.6, I can wait until stage-1 is reopened.
Should happen soon. So, yes, please wait for stage1 and then eventually backport for 4.6.1. Thanks, Richard.
