From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3773 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2015 10:26:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3714 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2015 10:26:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:26:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E909A2E4243D; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:26:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HLTRtTTrWx7k; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:26:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A39872E4243B; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:26:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Sandiford Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Mostly rewrite genrecog Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <2086417.otp1qkEs0S@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.29-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87bni7vyio.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <87egn5yis1.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <7736116.u1b0jHrWlO@polaris> <87bni7vyio.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01994.txt.bz2 > The generated code. genrecog.c itself isn't bad. :-) Nice work then. > OK. I'd left the head comment alone because it just described the > interface, which hasn't changed. But I suppose past lack of commentary > doesn't justify future lack of commentary. Here's what I added: > [...] > BTW, hope at least part of the doubling in size is due to more commentary > in the code itself. I see. Thanks a lot for writing down the description of the algorithm! > I'd rather leave stuff like that to someone who wants it rather than try > to write routines speculatively in the hope that someone would find them > useful. OK. -- Eric Botcazou