On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote: > On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> wrote: > > > >>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a > >>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have > >>> tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved > >>> quickly. > >> Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? > > if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how > > much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is > > reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to > > ask for help. > > There is a large class of bugs that can creep in due to the subtle > change of interface from double-int to wide-int. These happen outside > of the wide-int.[ch] code and seem statistically more likely by a large > margin than bugs in wide-int.[ch]. The good news, resolving them is > easy enough with side-by-side comparisons (say of dump files and .s > files). Most of those fixes I’d expect to be trivial (for some > definition of trivial).
Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry). But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainership areas. Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend"orffer
