On 12/06/13 02:37, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Do you have any codes where iv_ca_extend helps? I can see how that hunk
appears to be safe, and I'm guessing that setting the cost pair at each step
could potentially give more accurate costing on the next iteration of the
loop. But I'd love to be able to see this effect directly rather than just
assuming it's helpful. Given that I'm prepared to approve the iv_ca_extend
hunk.
Very sorry I can't provide an example about this now. I remember it's
a case in eembc I encountered, but with current trunk I can't
reproduce it with the change about iv_ca_extend. Maybe recent
checking has changed the behavior of IVOPT. Considering there is no
case about this change, I am fine to discard this part of patch and
continue with iv_ca_narrow part.
Let's drop this part for now, obviously we can come back to it if you
come across a testcase in your development. I'll focus on the
iv_ca_narrow from a review standpoint.
jeff
