[PATCH 6/6] qsort comparator consistency checking

[Jeff Law]

On 08/10/2017 05:24 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> The _5th macro isn't that bad either, appart from using reserved namespace
>>>> identifiers (it really should be something like qsort_5th and the arguments
>>>> shouldn't start with underscores).
>>>
>>> I didn't understand what Jeff found "ugly" about it; I wonder what epithets
>>> would be applied then to more, ahem, unusual parts of GCC.
>> I doubt anyone would want to hear what I might say about other code.
>> I'm sure I wouldn't want my kids reading how I might refer to certain
>> parts of GCC.
> 
> Imho it's no good to just say "ugly" in patch review without any further
> elaboration, it only serves to provide a minor chilling effect, telling
> the contributor they haven't done good enough (for your personal taste)
> without informing them where/how they could have improved.
> 
> More importantly, am I correct in understanding that at this point all
> remaining changes are reviewed and approved, and I can go ahead with
> preparing vec::qsort -> vec::sort mass-renaming patch and rebasing the
> others on top of it?  Or is the original approach with argument-counting
> trick still under consideration?
I still don't like the argument-counting trick.  But avoiding it seems
even more painful.  So let's go with your original approach with the
argument-counting trick.  At least it's buried and folks likely won't
have to look at it with any regularity.

jeff