Re: Potentially merging the transactional-memory branch into mainline.

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

> Have you ever posted the patch, or only made it available via the website?

Have you not seen the last 3 years of patches to gcc-patches?  They're 
prefixed by [trans-mem].  Perhaps you're filtering them out.

> Just scanning
> http://quesejoda.com/redhat/tm-branch-diffs-from-trunk-at-180744/compiler
> I see several issue that make me doubt it was reviewed by yourself, much
> less by anyone else.  And I think branch merges aren't really different
> from anything else, patches go to gcc-patches@ are reviewed, acked, and
> checked in.

I am not lead on this.  All the patches have been approved by Richard 
Henderson.  Your question makes me doubt that you have read gcc-patches 
for the past three years.

> For instance, there are new files gcc/c-pretty-print.c or
> ipa-type-escape.c, gcc/c.opt is moved meanwhile to gcc/c-family.  All
> these files aren't mentioned in the ChangeLog.  At this point I simply
> stopped looking carefully at the diff myself, because clearly nobody else
> did.  No wonder it's 800k.  I don't think this is in a reviewable state

That was a minor rsync hiccup this morning that clobbered the previous 
patch that was on the website.  The aforementioned files got picked up 
incorrectly by the svn merge.  Hit reload on your browser, or better 
yet... download the branch.

> right now. It might simply be a misapplied merge, or a broken diff, but
> whatever it is, I'd expect at least reviewable patches before considering
> a merge.

Reviewable patches as in what goes in gcc-patches?  Or do you want 
something else?