On 08/25/2018 01:32 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 08/25/18 21:02, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/25/2018 12:36 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Well, ya call it "layer one patch over the other"
I call it "incremental improvements".
It is (of course) a case by case basis. The way I try to look at these
things is to ask whether or not the first patch under consideration
would have any value/purpose after the second patch was installed. If
so, then it may make sense to include both. If not, then we really just
want one patch.
Agreed. I think the question is which of the possible STRING_CST
semantics we want to have in the end (the middle-end).
Everything builds on top of the semantic properties of STRING_CSTs.
This certainly plays a role. I bumped pretty hard against the
STRING_CST semantics issue with Martin's patch. I'm hoping that making
those more consistent will ultimately simplify things and avoid the
problems I'm stumbling over.
Of course, that means more delays in getting this sorted out. I really
thought I had a viable plan a couple days ago, but I'm having to rethink
in light of some of the issues raised.
I think we should slow down.
That's coming from someone whose been piling on revisions upon
revisions of your own work here as you change your mind about
whether STRING_CST should or shouldn't have a nul byte at
the end. You've been doing nothing but slowing us down for
the last five weeks.
There's nothing in this basic patch that cannot be easily adjusted
if something changes in the future. But there is quite a bit of
useful work already that builds on the basic infrastructure in it
that could move forward and that wouldn't be significantly affected
by changes to the underlying representation.
Martin
