Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then check it in. I think that would help
> > Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
> > GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial
> > interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF
> > side.
>
> It was not anywhere near that simple; there were a numbe
On Mar 2, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
"Trust but verify" starts with tr
> I could say much more (there are interesting stories about the
> behind-the-scenes politics) but it's off-topic.
Please think about writing a book telling the whole story when the dust will
have settled. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
What an interesting and unproductive discussion but I hope it ends
here or should I call somebody "a member of a German political party
very popular around 1940"? :-)
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrot
On 02/03/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then chec
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> [ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
>
> Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
> > rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
> >
> > "Trust but verify" s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
> Indeed I disagree
"Devang Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html
> >
> > This patch looks wrong to me. I don't understand how it could be
> > correct in the presence of __attribute__ ((aligned (N))). It checks
> > TYPE_PACKED but not TYPE_ALIGN or
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I am aware of the define_constraints patch. I am thinking about
> working on the H8 and M68K ports at least. How urgent is this? FWIW,
> I've reproduced the ICE that Zack mentioned, but I haven't
> investigated it.
It's not
> And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> there at the time).
Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
[ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
> rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
>
> "Trust but verify" starts with trust.
What I am about to say is probably an o
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html
This patch looks wrong to me. I don't understand how it could be
correct in the presence of __attribute__ ((aligned (N))). It checks
TYPE_PACKED but not TYPE_ALIGN or TYPE_USER_ALIGN. The default hook
assumes that objects larger th
On 02/03/07, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
> a patch. What is it then?
I remember
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
a patch. What is it then?
I remembered a week as well, but http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html sa
Andrew Pinski wrote:
100 good patches != good knowledge in one area.
Also I think I already submitted 100 good patches but every once in a
while I submit a bad one though I think it is good to begin with.
To tangent off this in a rather different direction: One of the things
that I've noticed
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:05:50PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> One answer to that is to have patch advocates to help push patches in.
> They would need some experience with the community, but would not need
> deep technical knowledge. This would be a volunteer position, along
> the lines of t
On 01 Mar 2007 18:05:50 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:51:24PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > If someone wants a patch committed they will ping it
> > a couple of times and if they lost interest becaus
Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Ian,
>
> >> I don't see why:
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html
> >>
> >> was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just
> >> been committed.
> > Not fair. Zack himself says the patch is not recom
Hi Ian,
I don't see why:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html
was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just
been committed.
Not fair. Zack himself says the patch is not recommended for commit,
and it just a baseline for further work. For this kin
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:51:24PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > If someone wants a patch committed they will ping it
> > a couple of times and if they lost interest because they now decide it
> > is not a good thing or they no longer care about it,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:45:21AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >A week is too short of time to ping
On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
> >
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time t
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Likewise:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00167.html
This patch looks wrong to me. I don't understand how it could be
correct in the presence of __attribute__ ((aligned (N))). It checks
TYPE_PACKED but not TYPE_ALIGN or TYPE_USER_ALI
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 04:51:24PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> If someone wants a patch committed they will ping it
> a couple of times and if they lost interest because they now decide it
> is not a good thing or they no longer care about it, it will just fall
> down the way side.
If it's a new
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
> >
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
> a patch. What is it then?
Sometimes the
On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
a patch. What is it then?
And sorry for the ping-flood then.
Manuel.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> No I am not saying that. I am saying that those patches might not be
> worth commenting on. If you feel they are worth commenting on, then
> comment on them but I don't see you commenting on those patches at
> all. I have not seen any patches that requ
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see why:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html
>
> was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just
> been committed.
Not fair. Zack himself says the patch is not recommended for commit,
and it just a
On 3/1/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see why:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html
was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just
been committed.
(or the target removed)
It is not, just nobody cares about that target any more, we hav
On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
No I am not saying that. I am saying that those patches might not
be worth commenting on.
Or, maybe they are. I think it would be better to have a policy that
addresses this issue, rather than require 18 months of silence for
someone to in
On 3/1/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Also I think GCC is doing the correct thing right now with respect of
> approving patches. Yes in the past we were not as good but now we
> have corrected those mistakes.
So, are you saying that
On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Also I think GCC is doing the correct thing right now with respect of
approving patches. Yes in the past we were not as good but now we
have corrected those mistakes.
So, are you saying that an 18 month review process isn't a mistake,
or that
On 3/1/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To steal an idea from llvm, if we permit post checkin review for
people that submit 100 good patches, would the wheels fall off the
bus? It seems to work for them, is there some reason why it couldn't
for us? Would it be more efficient and led to
35 matches
Mail list logo
