This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: reviewers for wide int.
- From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:22:47 -0400
- Subject: Re: reviewers for wide int.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5356C2CF dot 20609 at naturalbridge dot com> <52e8015e-88aa-455c-aa48-a94659b8f30b at email dot android dot com> <5356C784 dot 1020706 at naturalbridge dot com> <38A7715B-B303-46BD-8D9A-1629A2D19EA4 at comcast dot net> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1404231003170 dot 18709 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
On 04/23/2014 04:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <email@example.com> wrote:
While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved
Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right?
if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to ask for help.
There is a large class of bugs that can creep in due to the subtle
change of interface from double-int to wide-int. These happen outside
of the wide-int.[ch] code and seem statistically more likely by a large
margin than bugs in wide-int.[ch]. The good news, resolving them is
easy enough with side-by-side comparisons (say of dump files and .s
files). Most of those fixes I’d expect to be trivial (for some
definition of trivial).
Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that
uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into
MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry).
But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainership
This is not without precedent. The dataflow reviewers are authorized
to review changes to data flow anywhere in the rtl level and back ends.
In the many years that that has been in place none of us "went
rogue". We will be conservative.