From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27955 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2007 07:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 27947 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2007 07:56:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de (HELO colo.khms.westfalen.de) (213.239.196.208) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:56:28 +0000 Received: from khms-vpn-4.khms ([10.172.192.2]:42956 helo=khms.khms) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) id 1J4XI1-00042i-2l for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:54:57 +0100 Received: from desktop.local ([10.0.42.3]:35678 helo=desktop.khms.westfalen.de) by khms.khms with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) id 1J4XGM-0008HI-0o for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:53:14 +0100 Received: from kai by desktop.khms.westfalen.de with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J4XGJ-0002ja-MW for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:53:11 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:06:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC Message-ID: <20071218075311.GA9101@desktop.khms.westfalen.de> References: <4aca3dc20712151903r46c9eceane35edb92d08240ac@mail.gmail.com> <4aca3dc20712161712w1133fb96qd66be0e9a0bb1716@mail.gmail.com> <4766B8E5.60500@google.com> <4766DF5C.1020802@google.com> <47671BF4.5050704@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Kai Henningsen Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:38:31AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Would reformatting these and stamping a title on top make it worthy of > your interest? Actually, I think that *would* help (though, of course, it's impossible to predict if it would help *enough*). I've noticed before (though this thread is a particularly extreme example) that GCC developers seem no more immune than other people, from being able to ignore what's in a mail message (or news article) they're replying to, even up to ignoring the carefully-selected part they're quoting. I don't claim to understand it (nor to be completely immune to it myself), but I'm no longer surprised by it. Disappointed, but not surprised. Anyway, the point is that this seems much rarer when the subject is *not* in the inbox or a newsgroup. For whatever reason, people apply their reading skills differently in different situations. So, my advice would be: 1. Wait a while, so people have time to calm down. 2. Reformat and reorganize the stuff. 3. Put it in an obviously different format - say, give a link to a PDF, instead of putting it in a mail to this list. Oh, and it probably wouldn't hurt to give a short summary of what you did to the various optimizers, including mentioning "no change", *after* you know that that actually works. (For a work in progress, people seem to often disbelieve such claims, however well justified ... at least, if they're already looking hard for arguments against it, however spurious.) And no, I have no idea why this particular discussion degenerated so badly, and similar others didn't. Your style of argumentation may not have been perfect, but the same can be said for many other people here, and it doesn't always seem to lead to a meltdown. Maybe it depends on unpredictable factors like the mood people are in when they go reading their mail.