Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread David Edelsohn
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> I find this whole thread a rather sad and pathetic bikeshed >> discussion. Regardless of the formal policy, the basic concept is to >> use common sense. Common sense about the context of the code being >> changed, common sense about the patch

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Richard Kenner
> The thing about written policy is that it sets the tone for a project. > A restrictive policy tends to authoritarian rule by maintainers, it > seems to me. And a too little restrictive policy runs the risk of creating a feeling that the rules aren't necessarily to be taken too seriously. Neithe

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Alan Modra
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:56:26PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > To me the issue is not what is written down about > the policy, but whether the policy works in practice, > and it seems like it does, so what's the problem? > > This just seems to be making a problem where > none exists. I gave some

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Alan Modra
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:30:50PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's > >> definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? > > > No. I don't, let me quote from the policy: > > I find this whole thread a rather sad and pathetic bikes

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Robert Dewar
To me the issue is not what is written down about the policy, but whether the policy works in practice, and it seems like it does, so what's the problem? This just seems to be making a problem where none exists.

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread David Edelsohn
>> Sorry to pick on you here Steven, but this doesn't meet gcc's >> definition of an obvious patch. Don't believe me? > No. I don't, let me quote from the policy: I find this whole thread a rather sad and pathetic bikeshed discussion. Regardless of the formal policy, the basic concept is to use

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 25, 2013, at 9:17 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it. > > Sorry to pick on you here Steven,

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Diego Novillo
Jeff Law; Steven Bosscher >> Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy >> >> > Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change >> > (with the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things >> > inside #if 0, etc)), h

RE: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:33 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Diego Novillo; Jeff Law; Steven Bosscher > Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy > > &

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Richard Earnshaw
r; gcc-patches >> Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy >> >> On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra >> wrote: >>>> Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR On >>>

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Can I make a suggestion that if someone is making an "obvious" change (with > the exception of changing non-working code (comments, things inside #if 0, > etc)), have a patch on the mailing list for 12-24 hrs. before putting it > in? Maybe they could say something like, I will check this in by X

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread James Greenhalgh
Diego Novillo; Steven Bosscher; gcc-patches > > Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy > > > > On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra > > wrote: > > >> Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really r

RE: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Iyer, Balaji V
> -Original Message- > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:31 AM > To: Diego Novillo; Steven Bosscher; gcc-patches > Subject: Re: gcc's obvious patch policy >

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/26/13 08:21, Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote: Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Diego Novillo
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it. > > Sorry to pick on you here Ste

Re: gcc's obvious patch policy

2013-11-26 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it. > > Sorry to pick on you here Steve