On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 20:37, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 00:06, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think if you're going to reject this patch, a brief comment should > > be added to that code to justify why that existing superfluous check > > is worthwhile. > > It seems strange to add a comment to explain why it's there. If we're > going to the trouble of doing that, then we should just remove it and > add a very small comment to mention why INT8 sequences don't need to > be checked.
Any thoughts on this, Greg? David
