Richard Sandiford wrote: > > I don't think it's reasonable to commit this as obvious. You said > yourself in the covering message that "it doesn't at all restore > the original behaviour since we no longer compare the base address". > So even with the bootstrap failure, I think the patch needed review > before going in. > > Christophe's message doesn't change anything because you knew when you > posted the patch that it fixed the failure.
Well my understanding was that it is OK to fix a bootstrap failure. I believe my patch is trivial since it mostly removes redundant code. Also I took Jakub's review as an OK as there were no technical objections. However since you seem to disagree, I will revert it. We have now had 5 days of no builds for a major target, which is a huge inconvenience. So I don't think it is reasonable to wait any longer. The alternative is to revert the original patch that caused the bootstrap failure plus the patch(es) that unexpectedly changed the behaviour of the scheduler (I don't think there was any testing as to what effect those had on the schedule). So the question is who will do that and when? Wilco
