From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9199 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 06:31:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9184 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 06:31:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 06:31:06 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AwF1O-0003qr-Jd; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:29:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Berlin CC: cagney@gnu.org,drow@false.org,gdb@sources.redhat.com,mec.gnu@mindspring.com In-reply-to: (message from Daniel Berlin on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:05:58 -0500) Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040225035109.83E2F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <403C2E96.8050409@gnu.org> <1C4B9E16-67AD-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CD4D6.3000100@gnu.org> <1037DDEA-67B5-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CEE5C.5080100@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 > From: Daniel Berlin > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:05:58 -0500 > > Andrew continually claimed provably untrue things that could do nothing > but piss off people involved in the hard work that went on in the gcc > tree-ssa branch (schedule slippage, too many resources consumed, etc) I think you are exaggerating. Andrew expressed concerns about technical issues based on whatever information he had. I don't know whom he was talking to, and I'm ignorant of the subject matter because I don't track GCC lists, but my outsider's judgement is that his argument was of a technical nature, and I don't see why someone would spot any sign of malice in what he wrote. He might be mistaken, as we all are sometimes, but his is a genuine concern, not a wish to piss off. > This is generally known as trolling. I think you know Andrew all too well to suspect that he is trollying. > I'm seriously concerned that if he thinks the tree-ssa branch is > somehow an example of a bad development plan, that gdb development is > going down the wrong path. I understand his comments differently: that he fears that merging large branches _could_ have adverse side effects if things get out of control. In other words, it was a general comment on large merges, not something too specific about the specific case of tree-ssa. > I'm also seriously concerned that if he somehow thinks DW_OP_piece > support is more important than the intercu-branch, that he is also > going down the wrong path. It's not more important in general, but since we are preparing to cut the 6.1 branch in a few days, DW_OP_piece might be a good thing to do now, while delaying intercu-branch merge till after the release. It's a question of timing, not of an abstract importance.