Hi! On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:35:30PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > I disagree with your new definitions and I disagree with the manner in > which you are trying to change the values.
Yes. > Your patch is NOT okay without a lot more explanation and justification. Which is why I said: > > > 1) This isn't suitable for stage 4. You give a lot more reasons to not want it, but that was enough for me. > > > 2) Please add a test case, which shows what it does, that it is useful. I meant there is no way we can accept this patch if we aren't shown what it does, and that that is a good thing. > > > 3) Does this work on other OSes than Linux? What about Darwin and AIX? And here I meant that there is no way we can accept patches that influence code generation on all platforms when we have no idea what it does on most platforms. I did not intend to suggest the patch would be more acceptable if it was tested on other platforms; I wanted to say it is not acceptable if it is not. The main issue is 2). We need to understand what problem this patch is trying to solve. I'm sure Hao Chen had a reason for doing this patch, so I'd like to know what it is trying to achieve, what it is trying to improve! Segher
