This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!


David Edelsohn wrote:

> 	Have any of you considered that Steven was using hyperbole as a
> joke?  Are some people so overly-sensitized to Steven that they assume the
> worst and have a knee-jerk reaction criticizing him?

Yes, I did consider it; that's why I said:

> I can't tell if you have your tongue
> planted in your cheek, but if you do, it's not obvious.

Email is a tricky thing.  I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best
to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell
that they're jokes.

I don't think this was a knee-jerk reaction on my part.  I certainly
appreciate and respect Steven's contributions to GCC.  I read Steven's
post, the follow-ups, considered them for a while, read RTH's original
post, and then decided to post my message.

I certainly admit to a personal bugaboo about email tone on public
lists.  I think it's very important to err on the side of politeness.

> 	The issue began as a light-hearted discussion on IRC.  Steven's
> tone came across as inappropriate in email without context.  However,
> Mark's reply defending RTH was not qualified with "probably", which was an
> unfortunate omission, IMHO.

I did not defend RTH, except insofar as to suggest that RTH didn't act
with ill will.  It's true that I can't be certain of that, but it seems
highly unlikely to me that any GCC contributor would intentionally check
in a patch that they knew was in conflict with a clear direction of GCC.
 My guess is that RTH forgot the patch used TREE_COMPLEXITY, forgot we
were removing TREE_COMPLEXITY, or something.

Even if my original posting, I wrote:

> It's entirely reasonable to look for a way to get rid of this use of
> TREE_COMPLEXITY

I refrained from specifically criticizing RTH's check-in, but I did not
in any way try to defend his use of TREE_COMPLEXITY.  I agree that using
TREE_COMPLEXITY for OpenMP is undesirable, and that we should eliminate
that use.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]