From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: Richard Henderson , Joe Buck Cc: Bernd Schmidt , David Edelsohn , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:22:00 -0000 Message-id: <115120000.1000772522@warlock.codesourcery.com> References: <20010917151142.A30386@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00687.html --On Monday, September 17, 2001 03:11:42 PM -0700 Richard Henderson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:24:32PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: >> So how about requiring such documentation as part of the patch? > > Fine by me. Me, too. I think everyone should play by the same rules, even those of us with global write privileges. > In addition, it aids debugging future problems as well. > > Suppose the patch is wrong in some way that causes it to fail for > some obscure target under some conditions. Suppose this is not > discovered for a year. If the patch is well documented, one can > quickly recall what the original problem was, as opposed to either > (1) spending lots of time re-examining the original bug, or > (2) guessing the that the old patch was wrong and reverting it. > > Both (1) and (2) have happened many times in gcc history. Yes. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com