On 10/06/2015 09:19 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I dont get your fear. I could have created that patch by hand, it would
just take a long time, and would likely be less complete, but just as
large.
I'm not changing functionality. ALL the tool is doing is removing
header files which aren't needed to compile. It goes to great pains to
make sure it doesn't remove a silent dependency that conditional
compilation might introduce. Other than that, the sanity check is that
everything compiles on every target and regression tests show nothing.
Since we're doing this with just include files, and not changing
functionality, Im not sure what your primary concern is?
My concern is that I've seen occasions in the past where "harmless
cleanups" that were not intended to alter functionality introduced
severe and subtle bugs that went unnoticed for a significant amount of
time. If a change does not alter functionality, then there is a valid
question of "why apply it then?", and the question of correctness
becomes very important (to me anyway). The patch was produced by a
fairly complex process, and I'd want to at least be able to convince
myself that the process is correct.
Anyhow, I'll step back from this, you're probably better served by
someone else reviewing the patch.
Bernd
