Hi Joseph, On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 01:19:06PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:35:16PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > Patches 1, 2 and 3 are logically nothing to do with this feature. I'll > > > wait for them to be reviewed so that we only have a single-patch series, > > > before doing final review of the main patch. > > > > I do not fully understand. Who has to review patches 1,2,3? Also, do > > Someone who is a maintainer or reviewer of relevant parts of the compiler. > Maybe 90% of the people CC:ed are not GCC maintainers or reviewers and > should not be included on these patches at all.
Those are people with interest in one way or another in this feature (most of them, patch 4). While patches 1,2,3 are irrelevant to them, I kept them on the entire thread for simplicity. > > > you want to merge them, then I resend patch 4 as a single patch, and > > then you review that one? If so, that looks like a good plan to me. > > Yes, patch 4 as a single patch. With _Lengthof. No other names, no > __countof__, no __lengthof__. _Lengthof is a perfectly good name, no need > to be gratuitously incompatible. It is not gratuitously, IMO. You already know my concerns about it; please sed(1) yourself the name of the operator from these patches, and append your signature below mine, if you want to rename it. I won't do that, for I think it introduces a security problem that will slowly develop. If you wish to wait for Graz to make sure there's no incompatibility with ISO, that's another possibility. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
