Hi -

dje wrote:
> Frank Ch. Eigler writes:
>  > Unfortunately, only "medium-weird" ports are on the sourceware
>  > cgen repository, so it's possible that a change will break only
>  > a port you don't (yet) have access to.
> 
> cgen shouldn't be held ransom be Redhat.
> By that I mean if Redhat has proprietary ports it hasn't released yet
> that's its problem, not the net's.  [...]

Dude, you are reading way more into my message than you should.

My point was simply that the existing ports do not make a
very good test suite for changes in this area, since they
tend not to exercise this part of cgen particularly hard.
A change may look sensible for simple ports, but be actually
be incorrect, when considering cgen's behavior in complex
cases.  This is not to hold anyone back, just to make them
aware that "doing the right thing" is not that well-defined
in cgen land.


- FChE