This is the mail archive of the 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: reviewers for wide int.

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 <> 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.



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