On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 14:32, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> Regarding this particular patch, I hope it can be checked in to make >>> the test clean. It is a simple enhancement to a wheel that is already >>> there. It also serves as a case that can be referenced in the future >>> when the more general mechanism is available. >> Just to be clear, I'm not going to object to this patch; I don't have >> the time right now to really look at it. >> >> I was merely raising the issue that we have a need to solve the larger >> problem and that we need to be looking a the bigger picture. > > Agreed. I'm not happy about the patch, but I won't object to it. > It's clear, however, that we cannot keep adding hack on top of hack > here.
I don't think I have added too many pattern handling (aka Hack) since the predicate aware analysis was checked in -- this is actually the first attempt to try to do predicate simplification. Things like this is a natural course of software evolution. > David, will you be looking at creating a more general solution > for 4.7? I think it is a good area to explore, not necessarily by me though. > > Given the stage we are in, you will need OKs from our release managers for > 4.6. > Richard, if it is too late for 4.6, I can wait until stage-1 is reopened. Thanks, David > > Diego. >
