From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13439 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2012 19:26:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13424 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2012 19:26:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:26:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8BJQ7Ye009365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:26:07 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8BJQ6GV001231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:26:06 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: bitpos expansion patches summary References: <20120805005350.150e5b74@spoyarek> <20120902181515.GA9913@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120907162158.0aee8e85@spoyarek> <20120911190421.GA26399@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120911190421.GA26399@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:04:21 +0200") Message-ID: <87r4q88ipd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil 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