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