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: [PATCH 2/8] bpf: new GCC port


I didn't expect this to be contested and not by a frequent
reviewer, but since you took the time to express yourself, I'll
do the same.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:05:40PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> > >     > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:22:46AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> > >     > > --- a/configure
> > >     > > +++ b/configure
> > > Yeah by mistake I used a Debian patched autoconf 2.96.  Will regenerate
> > > using vanilla autoconf for subsequent versions of the patch.
> >
> > It's nice that this is identified and hopefully resolved, but
> > since nobody mentioned it I'll just point out that
> > it's preferable to *not at all* include generated files like
> > configure in patches.  See
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches>.
>
> "Do not include generated files as part of the patch, just mention them
> in the ChangeLog (e.g., "* configure: Regenerate.")."
>
> That's not common practice nowadays I think?

I don't know about that.  But, if that's a valid observation
then I'd say people just tend to generally drift to the path of
least resistance for the immediate task at hand.  It's rarely an
indication of *good* practice by itself, but perhaps that it's
time to bring it up.

> It's also not good advice
> for people who might get it wrong.

You mean the autoconf version, I guess.  That's about the only
value of including generated files; for newcomers that miss
using matched versions.  Including bulk in patches can also
cause grief by messages being lost when they exceed the
size-limit.

>  Also, the patches on the mailing
> list should preferably be exactly what is committed.  For sanity.

IMHO sanity for gcc-patches is maximum review-value and
readability for others, avoiding redundancy.  I'd just think
sending generated files for review is as redundant now as it was
when that advice was added.

Though, if you as a frequent reviewer believe that the valued
majority of reviewers and readers thinks differently, I suggest
taking steps to update the advice.  Either way, keep the advice
up-to-date, for sanity.

brgds, H-P


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