Re: [Committed] Use special-purpose hash table to speed up walk_tree

[Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>]

On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:58 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> On Sunday 17 October 2004 07:51, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> I don't think there is any such policy one way or the other.  
>> Certainly,
>> there is precedent for patches being approved offline.
>
> I know there is, and I think it's wrong.  More eyes see more
> things.
>
>
>>  Matt sent me the
>> patch, and it looked good to me.  I didn't see any reason to test it 
>> on
>> other architectures.
>
> Well, we've have some pretty serious breakage a few times in the
> past few weeks.  Already three times the cause of this breakage
> was that some patch wasn't tested on some architecture.  So I
> see lots of reasons to require better testing for patches when
> the mainlne is in stage3.
>
> Can we make it a requirement that larger patches like this should
> be tested on three platforms when the mainline is in stage3?

That may be a good idea, but bear in mind that it probably would
not have caught this problem.  I don't regularly use a platform
where pointers are 64-bit, so if I were testing this on three
platforms it probably would have been three 32-bit platforms.
If we're looking for diversity, it had probably better be
something like this: at least one non-Linux platform, at least
one non-ELF platform, at least one non-x86 platform, at least
two different word sizes.

			--Matt