Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting

[Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>]

2013/11/21 Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/13 03:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that this, the intrusiveness of the feature and the questionable
>>> gain makes me question whether GCC should have support for this
>>> feature (and whether we really should rush this in this late).
>>>
>>> Thus, I hereby formally ask to push back this feature to 4.10.
>>
>> Sigh.  I'd hoped we were making progress and Ilya could have things wrapped
>> up in a reasonable amount of time.  But I certainly see your point of view
>> and I have some concerns about the semantics of the builtins now that we're
>> getting deeper into the bits.
>>
>>
>> The patches were posted long ago (back in mid Sept) and received little/no
>> feedback at that time.  Ilya played by the rules and it was our failing as
>> maintainers that caused things to back up.  Thus I believe the code should
>> be given fair consideration for inclusion into 4.9.
>
> Note that we wouldn't get anywhere near a release if we apply this "rule".
> That maintainers time is not infinite is unfortunate but a fact :/
>
>> --
>>
>> I suspect the hardware implementation and ABI are largely set by the need to
>> interoperate with uninstrumented code.  Where I think the patchset falls
>> down is in implementation details.
>>
>> Anyway, if you're going to stick with your formal request to postpone until
>> after 4.9, I'm not going to push hard from the other direction. Given that,
>> we should probably pull out the half-dozen preparatory patches that went in.
>
> For the latter I was confused by partly applying a series for a feature that
> hasn't been fully reviewed anyway.  This shouldn't be how merging in a
> new feature works - you split up the feature into multiple patches to ease
> review, not to commit it piecewise over some weeks.

I'll prepare a patch to remove committed patches.  But the first part
of series added new ISA extension support.  It is independent from the
checker.  Should it be OK to keep ISA in trunk?

Ilya

>
> Richard.
>
>>
>> jeff