Re: [PATCH] fix PR symtab/15597

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> Doug> So code was moved to a different file and edited in one step
> Doug> (instead of moving it, and then editing it in a separate pass)?
>
> In this case I thought it couldn't reasonably be moved verbatim, since,
> IIRC, prior to my changes it required ELF bits from BFD, not allowed in
> generic code.

Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly,
I think what's allowed can give way to the teeny window in which a
multi-part patch gets checked in.

> Doug> [not that I mind per se, but I thought doing things that way
> Doug> was more than just "nice to have"]
>
> In your case the two changes had nothing to do with one another.  I
> think that is a reasonable standard.  If you disagree, I'm sure we can
> all agree on some other standard.

My case?
I've long since dropped from cache what that might be referring to so
I had to go looking ...
Are you referring to this?
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-09/msg00884.html

I didn't move a function to a new file, the desire to simplify
archeology is what this (sub-)thread is about.
You could be referring to a different patch of course. :-)

No worries.  As I say I don't mind.  I raise the issue because I was
led to believe archeology simplification (for lack of a better phrase,
blech) is sufficiently important, so I wanted to clear it up.
Perhaps if the amount of code being moved was much larger, or the
changes were much greater, you would have split the patch into two as
a matter of course?