Potentially merging the transactional-memory branch into mainline.

[Richard Guenther]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?

Reviewable branch merge patch(es).  You can't expect everyone to
follow all development branches that may or may not end up being merged.

Richard.