Re: bitpos expansion patches summary

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> Additionally I am pretty sure the codebase will get broken soon
Jan> again as it is common GDB practice to use 'int' for every length
Jan> and I do not review very every check-in.  So it would be nice to
Jan> possibly be able to do such incremental re-checks in the future;
Jan> although I am not sure it will be done.

Perhaps you could post something here describing your intended rules.

It could be part of patch review.  That obviously won't catch
everything, but we can make an effort at least.

Jan> Also IMO (any feedback from other maintainers?) we need full
Jan> annotation of the patch file as with such large number of change
Jan> there is not clear which changes are justified and whether there
Jan> are no excessive changes.
Jan> 	http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/bitpos3.patch
Jan> 	(lines starting with 'x')

Ouch, 168 hits.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by a full annotation.

Tom