On Tue, 13 May 2025, Tamar Christina wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:35 PM > > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4][c-frontend]: implement pragma unroll n > > <requested|preferred> for C [PR116140] > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2025, Tamar Christina wrote: > > > > > To know whether this should be possible to do or not this proposes an > > > extension > > > to the pragma GCC unroll with an argument to indicate if we can override > > > the > > > value or not. > > > > This patch is missing updates to the documentation for that pragma. > > It's in the patch adding documentation. E.g. patch 1/4.
I think this illustrates that artificially splitting patches into tiny pieces is harmful. Documentation and tests should go with the implementation, not as separate fragments in a series. And CC:ing me on a patch isn't very useful if what I'm CC:ed on isn't self-contained, as any feedback from reading the copy received directly (as opposed to later reading the patch on the list) may be misleading as seen here. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
