On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Any concerns/objections?
I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the regenerated files is very small and it helps even in patch review to actually check if the configure.ac/m4 etc. changes result just in the expected changes and not some unrelated ones (e.g. caused by user using wrong version of autoconf/automake etc.). There can be exceptions, e.g. when in GCC we update from a new version of Unicode, the regenerated ucnid.h diff can be large and uname2c.h can be huge, such that it can trigger the mailing list size limits even when the patch is compressed, see e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636427.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636426.html But I think most configure or Makefile changes should be pretty small, usual changes shouldn't rewrite everything in those files. Jakub
