Re: Problem with use of TYPE_SIZE in tree optimizers

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Richard Kenner wrote:

> There are exactly three places that violate this rule.  One is in
> tree-mudflap.c, but in a function has no comments in front of it (I thought
> these were supposed to be supplied before the merge?), so I don't know what
> it's supposed to do.  That was not the one that's causing problems.

I provided a list of functions from a few files that are missing comments, 
and a perl script to list more, in bug 13756.

There was a specific commitment from the tree-ssa people (e.g. 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg01304.html>) to address 
documentation issues.  I'm concerned that such issues have been largely 
ignored since the branch merge rather than treated as a critical 
regression to address, especially as we are coming up to the 4.0 branch.  
When do the tree-ssa people plan to deal with these documentation issues, 
which are a serious regression for everyone who didn't write the tree-ssa 
code but may wish to fix something in it?  Such a commitment is not 
something that ended with the branch merge; it applies for the full 
lifetime of the code, to bring the documentation up to scratch and to 
reject all patches that don't keep it up to date.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)