On 1/29/07, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope Steven accepts a little deal: he exits angry-stevenb-mode, and I donate him this untested patch to remove TREE_COMPLEXITY from C++.
No, thank you. I've decided long ago that I'm not going to work on anything unless there is nobody working in the other direction. In the case of TREE_COMPLEXITY, one of the best and most prominent gcc hacker decided to use something of which, I believe, everyone thinks it should go. And he did so in a way almost as if to cover it up, by accessing the field directly instead of through the accessor macros. So I freak out, which is not good, I know. I appologize to those who feel offended, because I did not mean to. My "what was on your mind" remark was *very* tongue-in-cheek, because clearly rth wouldn't have done this when he would have had more time/patience/whatever. See his own remark in the commit mail about his state of mind when he commited this bit. But then to have Mark *support* rth's change, that really shows the total lack of leadership and a common plan in the design of gcc. Why should I spend hours on this kind of cleanup, only to feel frustrated, to make others dislike me, and to have zero result in the end? I'll just work on something else instead. Gr. Steven
