From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 51193 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2018 18:16:20 -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 50931 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2018 18:15:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=person X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:15:48 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1gWmZO-0002gl-ES from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:15:46 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.90) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:15:43 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gWmZK-0007TI-IY; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:15:42 +0000 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:16:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Martin Sebor CC: Jakub Jelinek , Marek Polacek , Jason Merrill , Nathan Sidwell , Gcc Patch List Subject: Re: [PATCH] accept all C integer types in function parameters referenced by alloc_align (PR 88363) In-Reply-To: <78a7396e-8a64-4919-82d6-38959fda0e55@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <0f3f1395-adac-8b5f-82e4-e656bf1207fb@gmail.com> <20181211071726.GI12380@tucnak> <78a7396e-8a64-4919-82d6-38959fda0e55@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00729.txt.bz2 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. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com