This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop unroll fixes
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:22:02 -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-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
--On Monday, September 17, 2001 03:11:42 PM -0700 Richard Henderson
<rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Me, too. I think everyone should play by the same rules, even those
of us with global write privileges.
> 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.
Yes.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com