Re: fix for pr47837

[Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 14:32, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> Regarding this particular patch, I hope it can be checked in to make
>>> the test clean. It is a simple enhancement to a wheel that is already
>>> there. It also serves as a case that can be referenced in the future
>>> when the more general mechanism is available.
>> Just to be clear, I'm not going to object to this patch; I don't have
>> the time right now to really look at it.
>>
>> I was merely raising the issue that we have a need to solve the larger
>> problem and that we need to be looking a the bigger picture.
>
> Agreed. ?I'm not happy about the patch, but I won't object to it.
> It's clear, however, that we cannot keep adding hack on top of hack
> here.

I don't think I have added too many pattern handling (aka Hack) since
the predicate aware analysis was checked in -- this is actually the
first attempt to try to do predicate simplification.  Things like this
is a natural course of software evolution.

>?David, will you be looking at creating a more general solution
> for 4.7?

I think it is a good area to explore, not necessarily by me though.

>
> Given the stage we are in, you will need OKs from our release managers for 4.6.
>

Richard, if it is too late for 4.6, I can wait until stage-1 is reopened.

Thanks,

David

>
> Diego.
>