> So for the future I'd suggest you post those with a remark that you think > they're obvious and going to commit in a day (or some other reasonable > timeframe) if there are no complaints.
Oh, I see. Thanks Robin for reminding. That would be perfect. Do you have any best practices for the remark "obvious"? Like [NFC] in subject to give some hit for not-function-change, maybe take [TBO] stand for to-be-obvious or something like that. Pan -----Original Message----- From: Robin Dapp <rdapp....@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:26 PM To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: richard.guent...@gmail.com; tamar.christ...@arm.com; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com; Robin Dapp <rdapp....@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] RISC-V: Fix vector SAT_ADD dump check due to middle-end change > This patch would like fix the dump check times of vector SAT_ADD. The > middle-end change makes the match times from 2 to 4 times. > > The below test suites are passed for this patch. > * The rv64gcv fully regression test. That's OK. And I think testsuite fixup patches like this you can consider "obvious" as long as you're sure the underlying reason is understood. In particular as you have been working in the saturating space for a while now. So for the future I'd suggest you post those with a remark that you think they're obvious and going to commit in a day (or some other reasonable timeframe) if there are no complaints. -- Regards Robin
