From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4899 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2018 20:09:06 -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 4880 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2018 20:09:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:2008, sincerely, person X-HELO: mail-ot1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-ot1-f66.google.com) (209.85.210.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:09:04 +0000 Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id 32so15292424ota.12 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:09:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0f3f1395-adac-8b5f-82e4-e656bf1207fb@gmail.com> <20181211071726.GI12380@tucnak> <78a7396e-8a64-4919-82d6-38959fda0e55@gmail.com> <865f21aa-7408-6648-bac0-6daf0d6f15e1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <865f21aa-7408-6648-bac0-6daf0d6f15e1@gmail.com> From: Jason Merrill Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] accept all C integer types in function parameters referenced by alloc_align (PR 88363) To: Martin Sebor Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Jakub Jelinek , Marek Polacek , Nathan Sidwell , gcc-patches List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00738.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > 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). I don't think anyone objected to your mail, they were just disagreeing that the patch was obvious. That is also a judgment call. IMO there's no need to have an ironclad policy here, since the consequences of a particular change being "wrongly" consider either obvious or non-obvious are small. Jason