From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
To: rth@redhat.com (Richard Henderson)
Cc: bernds@redhat.com (Bernd Schmidt), dje@watson.ibm.com (David Edelsohn), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:24:00 -0000
Message-id: <200109172124.OAA11113@atrus.synopsys.com>
References: <20010917131522.B30256@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00667.html

On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > I've complained about missing documentation for the patches, so let me try
> > to suggest how this patch should have been described:

Richard writes:
> Oh were every patch documented like you describe!  It would
> make the review process _so_ much easier.

So how about requiring such documentation as part of the patch?  We might
not require that it be quite so thorough as Bernd's example (though we
might put his example up on the web as a model of what we'd like to see),
but at least some explanation of what is going wrong, what the patch does,
and why this is the right thing would make patch reviewers' lives easier
and probably improve the quality of gcc.

Then if we combine that with my earlier suggestions, some less experienced
folks could sign up to make sure that these basic criteria are met
(pre-filtering), and gurus like Richard wouldn't be asked to waste their
time on patches that don't meet standards.

Joe