This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 3 Feb 2003 16:36:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
- Reply-to: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
The following reply was made to PR c/9072; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <email@example.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:31:41 -0600 (CST)
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
> > seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
> The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
> is established procedure  that patches failing to follow the standards
> adequately get ignored.
Sorry, don't flame me :-) I am just trying to find ways to get patch
submitters and potential reviewers together.
The bug database is full with reports that have patches attached. If
nobody with the ability to judge things takes a look at them, then they
will remain open forever. I'm just trying to spark discussion on them.
Every once in a while I succeed to get a patch into CVS this way. I think
that's better than just letting them sleep.
>  This is very bad procedure; ignoring patches rather than explaining
> what is wrong is far too likely to lose potential contributors.
Exactly. If there's someone with little knowledge of gcc processes who
manages to find a patch that then never gets any attention, he's not
likely to try again next time. If he does get feedback, and be it only
that the patch is basically that it is ok but a Changelog entry missing
and that the ChangeLog format is described at XYZ, then that'll motivate
I do understand why this is so, but we're doing badly in this field!
PS: Segher - I think the idea of this PR is right, and I would certainly
appreciate if you could submit a patch! Thanks!
Wolfgang Bangerth email: firstname.lastname@example.org