[Ping]Two pending IVOPT patches

[Jeff Law]

On 12/06/13 02:37, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Do you have any codes where iv_ca_extend helps?  I can see how that hunk
>> appears to be safe, and I'm guessing that setting the cost pair at each step
>> could potentially give more accurate costing on the next iteration of the
>> loop.   But I'd love to be able to see this effect directly rather than just
>> assuming it's helpful.  Given that I'm prepared to approve the iv_ca_extend
>> hunk.
> Very sorry I can't provide an example about this now.  I remember it's
> a case in eembc I encountered, but with current trunk I can't
> reproduce it with the change about iv_ca_extend.  Maybe recent
> checking has changed the behavior of IVOPT.  Considering there is no
> case about this change, I am fine to discard this part of patch and
> continue with iv_ca_narrow part.
Let's drop this part for now, obviously we can come back to it if you 
come across a testcase in your development.  I'll focus on the 
iv_ca_narrow from a review standpoint.

jeff