This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop unroll fixes
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:11:42 -0700
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010917131522.B30256@redhat.com> <200109172124.OAA11113@atrus.synopsys.com>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:24:32PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> So how about requiring such documentation as part of the patch?
Fine by me.
> but at least some explanation of what is going wrong, what the patch does,
> and why this is the right thing would make patch reviewers' lives easier
> and probably improve the quality of gcc.
In addition, it aids debugging future problems as well.
Suppose the patch is wrong in some way that causes it to fail for
some obscure target under some conditions. Suppose this is not
discovered for a year. If the patch is well documented, one can
quickly recall what the original problem was, as opposed to either
(1) spending lots of time re-examining the original bug, or
(2) guessing the that the old patch was wrong and reverting it.
Both (1) and (2) have happened many times in gcc history.