On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 15:03, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:21 +0200 (CEST) > "Nicola Pero" <nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com> wrote: > >> > Huh, I see no reason for this rename. It'll just make patches across >> > releases harder. >> >> Sure. But any change will make "patches across releases harder" ... does >> it mean we can't make any changes - not even in phase 1 ? :-( >> >> The reason I'd like to change the name is that "attribs.c" is meaningless. >> I never realized it contained code to deal with attributes until I opened >> the file and read the code inside. I always thought it contained some >> sort of mysterious internal GCC data structure or pass. Isn't that a good >> enough reason to rename it ? :-) > > > I agree with such renames and clean-ups, but I also sadly think there > are very difficult in the GCC community (because old-timers who could > approve that don't care, and don't like such patches).
You keep overgeneralizing and I think it is misleading. Existing reviewers will object to certain renames and/or cleanups when they do not see a compelling value proposition. If you think that your change brings value, but the maintainer does not see it, it may be a sign that you have not described the change properly. Or it may be simply a sign that your change is not as valuable as a cleanup as you think it is. In the end, some cleanups are a judgment call. Different reviewers will have different opinions. > In an ideal world, I would like many patches like this. In particular, > I would like some consistent naming conventions (that would contribute > to define what modules are in GCC - so far, we do have "modularity > efforts", but I still believe that we don't have yet modules: we cannot > name them, and we cannot even count them, so in my view they don't > exist yet; some nice old-timers have been upset because I told that GCC > is not modular, but since GCC modules are not counted nor named yet, I > still believe that GCC is not made of well defined modules - and that > is what I mean by "modularity"; for many GCC gurus, it is only a > relative qualification -unrelated to any set of modules-, and GCC is > indeed slowly improving in that aspect.). Do not expect these changes to show up in a sudden rush of modernity. It will take time. Some may never materialize (diminishing returns, though we are still far from that point). Diego.