On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote: > >> I'll give it a few more days for the conversation to settle, so I know >> what I should do between: >> - the barely modified patch you accepted, >> - the check asked by Jakub, >> - the restriction to identity that prevents any regression (well...), >> - something else? > > > I didn't realize the conversation would go quiet immediatly... > > Is someone willing to take the responsibility of telling me which approach > is right? I can add Jakub's checks (though I am not sure how I would test > them), but I would rather not do it if the conclusion is that they are > either unnecessary (original patch is ok) or insufficient (don't avoid > Ramana's regressions). I can do the very safe option 3 (only combine > permutations when the result is the identity permutation), but I first want > to make sure the more general thing is bad. > > (sorry, it's my first patch that gets conflicting answers...)
Well, we're waiting for someone to break the tie ... I'd go with the original patch, improving the backends where necessary. Richard. > -- > Marc Glisse
