On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Michael Matz wrote: >>> Hmm. And maintaining a cache is faster than >>> passing/returning/manipulating two registers? >> >> For the most part, we merely mirror existing code, check out >> lookup_const_double and immed_double_const. > > No, I won't without patches on this list.
Ah, we are discussing the code in the gcc tree currently. You _can_ comment on it, if you like to. I was only pointing out that this choice we didn't make nor deviate from the code in the top of the tree. If you think it is wrong to cache it, then talking about the code in the top of the tree is the right place to discuss it. Though, you don't have to if you don't want to. > You keep repeating bragging Such hostility. Why? I don't get it. I _asked_ about when the cxx branch was going to land, I stated that I liked non-mutating interfaces, I gave a heads up that we have a wide-int class to replace double-int for ints. I _only_ gave a heads up because of the submitted change to the cxx branch conflicts on a larger than expected scale with the wide-int change. I think giving a heads up before the conflict happens is good citizenship. > I mean, preparing the audience for an upcoming _suggested_ change in data > structure of course is fine. But argueing as if the change happenend > already, and what's more concerning, as if the change was even already > suggested and agreed upon even though that's not the case, is just bad > style. So, let me get this straight, alerting people that I have a patch that conflicts with another posted patch is, bad style? Odd. I saw it listed on page 10 of the etiquette guide, maybe you could update the guide for us. > I would suggest to stay conservative about whatever you have (except if > it's momentarily materializing), and _especially don't argue against or > for or not against or for whatever improvement is suggested Ah, that's a misunderstanding on your part. I was not arguing for, or against the double_int changes. In fact, I'm very supportive of those changes and the entire cxx branch, not that you'd know that, as I think all of the changes are a slam dunk and don't need any support from me. The :-( in the email that you read, was just a comment that someone is going to have to resolve conflicts. Now that we know the timing of the cxx branch landing, we expect, we'll handle the conflicts on the wide-int side. If the timing was different, we'd land the wide-int change first, then the :-( in the heads up comment would be read more as, we're sorry, but we've just scrambled the tree on you, so sorry. Let me be perfectly clear, I support the double_int changes and the entire cxx-conversion branch. No work I may or may not have matters or should be considered in reviewing any patches. I'm a firm believer in the first in, wins method of resolving conflicts. Sorry if anyone thought I was objecting in anyway to the double_int work. > Nobody has seen it yet, Actually, that's not true; but, it doesn't matter any. > so you can't expect to get any feedback on it. I don't recall asking for feedback on it. The feedback I requested that you quote above, was feedback on the code in the top of the tree.
