David Edelsohn wrote: > Have any of you considered that Steven was using hyperbole as a > joke? Are some people so overly-sensitized to Steven that they assume the > worst and have a knee-jerk reaction criticizing him?
Yes, I did consider it; that's why I said: > I can't tell if you have your tongue > planted in your cheek, but if you do, it's not obvious. Email is a tricky thing. I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell that they're jokes. I don't think this was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I certainly appreciate and respect Steven's contributions to GCC. I read Steven's post, the follow-ups, considered them for a while, read RTH's original post, and then decided to post my message. I certainly admit to a personal bugaboo about email tone on public lists. I think it's very important to err on the side of politeness. > The issue began as a light-hearted discussion on IRC. Steven's > tone came across as inappropriate in email without context. However, > Mark's reply defending RTH was not qualified with "probably", which was an > unfortunate omission, IMHO. I did not defend RTH, except insofar as to suggest that RTH didn't act with ill will. It's true that I can't be certain of that, but it seems highly unlikely to me that any GCC contributor would intentionally check in a patch that they knew was in conflict with a clear direction of GCC. My guess is that RTH forgot the patch used TREE_COMPLEXITY, forgot we were removing TREE_COMPLEXITY, or something. Even if my original posting, I wrote: > It's entirely reasonable to look for a way to get rid of this use of > TREE_COMPLEXITY I refrained from specifically criticizing RTH's check-in, but I did not in any way try to defend his use of TREE_COMPLEXITY. I agree that using TREE_COMPLEXITY for OpenMP is undesirable, and that we should eliminate that use. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
