From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19755 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2018 19:46:28 -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 19739 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2018 19:46:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=broad, punctuation, sincerely X-HELO: mail-qt1-f193.google.com Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com (HELO mail-qt1-f193.google.com) (209.85.160.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:46:26 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id r14so17902040qtp.1 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:46:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gK10f/0VWiCr8VlbTQ+LFrBYLh0xl5hzh/okPXE/6jI=; b=iWInkUPOtgAhrpJ9jgVFO0EyQRisrTIGAqfYaALKausqD8uPWm1/gbYDYAxWv/593J nrWGU2v9EnAeyWyeTfzTOgZ0otBVDbiGuEsMO/UlG26cx3yLz0tVqCTf6iN8Ke5/KwPx s6jFbIYwH2Hy+73We6HnS5eHwMJwC7zaX2UtpgIolzBn3CCVMnpxA67mQuQ6z+q4T+Dh 8/GkgJeo9LINpy3z9GUvVeZmOm2ZRb5kf2YwrUad4oXnZsMZDGjl7y6678WP6p9TyTN4 SyBjMNuv61xY9U0MVX+p6lwbDqt/M3myy4UMze8yMNmEMuG6mpdTg6UpGRVq+WzYQ1E+ KgUw== Return-Path: Received: from localhost.localdomain (97-118-99-160.hlrn.qwest.net. [97.118.99.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a185sm8325982qkb.1.2018.12.11.11.46.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:46:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] accept all C integer types in function parameters referenced by alloc_align (PR 88363) To: Joseph Myers Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Marek Polacek , Jason Merrill , Nathan Sidwell , Gcc Patch List References: <0f3f1395-adac-8b5f-82e4-e656bf1207fb@gmail.com> <20181211071726.GI12380@tucnak> <78a7396e-8a64-4919-82d6-38959fda0e55@gmail.com> From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: <865f21aa-7408-6648-bac0-6daf0d6f15e1@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00736.txt.bz2 On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > >> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval >> policy on the gcc list: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html >> >> looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which >> I'm afraid didn't really clarify things), didn't get any. > > I think "will the person who objects to my work the most be able to find a > fault with my fix?" in the policy on obviousness is clear enough. A > policy decision on what is or is not part of a language extension can't be > obvious, and nor can determining subtle questions of exactly what the > definition of some internal interface is or should be. Anything that someone might find fault with is so broad as to remove the ability to make the judgment in any case. Reviewers have been known to find fault with the slightest things, from trivial formatting nits, to punctuation in comments, to names of variables, to the location of new tests, to ChangeLogs. If the policy's intent is not to let people make judgment calls then it ought to be updated. I have no proposal for changes to it at the moment, but I don't see how anyone can reasonably object to someone posting a patch and saying "if there are no objections I will go ahead and commit this change because I think it's obviously correct." If even that is against the policy then change it to make that clear (though I sincerely hope that isn't so). Martin