Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:42:56 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> Please, please, articulate the `pain on our part' that we're apparently 
> all suffering.  I'm the release manager, if anyone is is going to 
> experience pain, it's going to be me.

Yes, and I don't think we should dismiss your pain (==loss of time) so
easily.

> > It's also the pain of our users
> > who will need to install two versions within 4 weeks.
> 
> This update is for _MIPS_ users only.  The next update is for _i386_ 
> users only.

What about people (or sysadmins) who need both, e.g. because they
actually make a good use of the multi-arch features and debug several
different CPUs from the same system?

Anyway, those are not the important issues here.

> > And I still don't understand what is the rush to release the MIPS
> > patch without waiting for another week or two and then releasing the
> > i386 patch as well.
> 
> If I were a MIPS user (hmm, I'm even the maintainer), I'd be pretty 
> cheesed off that a fix to get `break main; run' working was being held 
> back due the inistance that it be bundled with an unrelated i386 fix.

Sorry, Andrew, this is just reiterating what I already said I didn't
understand: if we care so much for the MIPS, why did you refuse to
wait for it to be fixed in 6.2?  And if 6.2 could hit the street with
MIPS broken, why cannot it stay broken for a week or two more, instead
of letting the i386 remain broken longer?

I keep asking this same question for about eternity, and you keep not
answering it, for some reason that is beyond me.  It's embarrassing.
If there is some logic that would show why these two decisions do not
contradict each other, please explain that logic.  You don't need my
agreement to go ahead, but I think I deserve to at least know your
reasoning, even if I disagree.