This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 01 06:15:52 EDT
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
I believe leaving the breakage in the default CVS tree will get more
eyes looking into the problem, so that it gets fixed faster.
Reverting the patch so as to return to the previous broken state is
just papering over the problem. If we reject patches that paper over
problems, which we do, why should we encourage patches that revert
patches that exposed latent bugs?
This is a good summary of my position as well.
Note that neither of us are talking about breakages that are serious enough
that it will mean that people won't be able to make forward progress on
other work.