On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote:
>> But yes, we definitely should document the final canonical ordering. > > Is that about to also happen? > > I foresee in another half-a-dozen years, and *this* iteration is > forgotten, someone bothered enough to argue eloquently coming > around, doing rtl-level-maintenance, maybe a new pass (ok maybe > not a *new RTL-pass* :) sees that order as wrong for the reason > listed above, and does the legwork to switch the order around. > It will be ok to change it again then, because the order just > happened this time because of minimal-edit-reasons, right? > Noone can argue that it was a thoughtful deliberate change that > we bothered to document, to stay consistent? ;) The proposed doc patch is wiating for review at [1]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01073.html Uros.
