From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5678 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2010 22:59:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 5665 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2010 22:59:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:59:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o98MxGai007732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:59:16 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o98MxFvk008691; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:59:16 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o98MxFIQ020084; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:59:15 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C8E4F3797CC; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:59:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Hilfinger@adacore.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Correct dict_hash to our most recent version. References: <201010050820.o958Kf42002588@syracuse.mckusick.com> <20101007084404.9100B561BD@kwai.gnat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20101007084404.9100B561BD@kwai.gnat.com> (Paul Hilfinger's message of "Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:44:04 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hilfinger <, ":"@gnat.com> writes: Paul> Sigh. I must stop working late at night. I have corrected my last Paul> checkin of dictionary.c:dict_hash to include the code that the Paul> comments in my commit message was actually discussing (deferring to Paul> msymbol_hash_iw in a few more cases to avoid some nasty hash Paul> collisions). While I should ask for another round of approval Paul> technically, for expendience I'm going to go out on a limb and check Paul> this in now, since it passes the testsuite, isn't likely to provoke Paul> a violent reaction, given that my first version didn't, and is easily Paul> undone in any case. My 2 cents. I think what you did is fine in this situation. This patch is bordering on the obvious boundary, at least given that you were just working in this exact area. It is also ok to just ask for a review. I personally don't mind the occasional breakage -- we all make mistakes, and while I sometimes panic when I check in a bug, I also know there's really no need, so long as that wasn't the last commit before a release :-) Tom