C++ PATCH: Fix PR 13275

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec 17, 2003, "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> not sure what you mean.  I'm trying to make a meta-point: given that
> we are in stage 3, and given that we have a real bug which the patch
> does fix, objections of the form "It should be done in a totally
> different way" would carry significantly more weight if they came
> attached to alternative patches.  Particularly if the totally
> different way might be too invasive.

Given that GCC has moved towards being against extensions in the
recent past, and that there are disputes against the proposed
extension, perhaps we should step back and consider other
alternatives, namely, living with the bug, or reverting the patch that
introduced it in the first place.

Pushing an extension in just because it happens to fix a bug is not
good enough of a reason IMHO.  Bad extensions have gone in in the past
because they seemed to be neat features, or because there was an
apparent need for them.

Consider how the patch would have been handled should it have been
posted by someone who didn't have blanked write approval.  If two
global maintainers disagree on whether a patch should go in, what
happens?  Why should this one case be different, just because the
person who went ahead and installed the patch didn't have to ask for
approval?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer