From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22978 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2016 15:25:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 22953 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2016 15:25:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=clothes, 1980, UD:R, bode X-HELO: mail-pa0-f67.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f67.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f67.google.com) (209.85.220.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:25:56 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f67.google.com with SMTP id yy13so3321596pab.1 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:25:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6tNUJ/s/1Kx3sNsiujmuUSl3PmyOARO36pLfUs1ZQaQ=; b=DqMO1T5OyN8GJnSGIidrObUSSiPsrn+WEn8lBeG/lsKFQ4J7PCnv3BFQpYTOwA8FiR 49vCKxysI6ei5MKhXEkAQAMeVRc1wbY1/OEWE3sb4RhdhHF7QaRRVcOZ8mbThFaz3lO0 p0fsoIaYqfZiGKJzqPHy2zYTZbeBnkuz0E8jydBAseMcvP5xe/pFPJbgtfoieXfL3acV NANTaV84oBsqqCB0honcpVdEDqdwkxCM1oTE85RSq6AmTgisYmVfNXJudcEAjE9Ae3bz +7eHSlnw5N92B08qpR2XhSYNOLHORBFWKcpu3H7fcespkbvHGF3LhWQWtrBJGu8/IAeH 1CDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS0C1owcHwZ1ox2hUzDD13sCHPqobHAOzNd4MD6yK3eN7aM8a3cvuIX0XGzHS+m5Q== X-Received: by 10.66.235.231 with SMTP id up7mr5201958pac.7.1453476354803; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:25:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ah10sm10543188pad.23.2016.01.22.07.25.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:25:53 -0800 (PST) From: Yao Qi To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Keven Boell , Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fort_dyn_array: add basic fortran dyn array support References: <1435754532-17922-1-git-send-email-keven.boell@intel.com> <1435754532-17922-2-git-send-email-keven.boell@intel.com> <20150721180502.GN7406@adacore.com> <55C213C7.7070202@linux.intel.com> <20150805202301.GB14992@adacore.com> <51130.172.28.205.135.1438861308.squirrel@linux.intel.com> <20150820125159.GD4571@adacore.com> <5617A6FB.4050407@linux.intel.com> <86oacgsgdx.fsf@gmail.com> <56A1D8CD.3040905@linux.intel.com> <20160122124050.GG5146@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20160122124050.GG5146@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:40:50 +0400") Message-ID: <86y4bhr5z8.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00568.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > I don't think that reverting without more investigation is a good > idea. I quickly looked at a good dozen of those reports, and, as > far as I know, these are new FAILs, so we don't know that they are > regressions. I could also be compiler issues. They are fails of tests for the new feature, so they aren't regressions. It could be compiler issues, of course. > > There is also the fact that reviewing these patches took me not > just hours, but actually days in total (I don't know how much time > Keven et al also spent answering all my comments). I would prefer > re-doing all that work only if we have confirmation that this is > causing a critical problem that we can't fix without Keven's help. Your review efforts are not lost if the patch is reverted. Keven or some one else will work on the basis of it, so everything, such as comments and code style, should be still there. The reviewing efforts shouldn't justify keeping something in GDB, which breaks tests at the beginning. Patches are reviewed in the scope of reviewers' knowledge and experience, so nobody knows the effects of patches on the complicated software, such as GDB, on some certain env. It is reasonable to me that patches still cause regressions after several rounds of careful reviews, but it doesn't mean we should take them in source tree. > > That being said - it doesn't bode well for the future of this > feature if the authors don't have time to look into issues they > create... Yes, I agree. In short, I am not strongly against this patch as it doesn't cause critical problem, and I can live up with it. However, it would be nice to revert it. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7) P.S. "A feature which is omitted can always be added later, when its design and its implications are well understood. A feature which is included before it is fully understood can never be removed later." -- C.A.R. Hoare, The Emperor's Old Clothes, 1980 Turing Award Lecture