Hi, On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > And local patches. Basically _no_ patch will apply anymore as HJ changed > > every single file. > > That's an exaggeration since only a few lines in each file were change. The top 12 from the 2.2 MB patch: tree-vect-loop.c | 386 ++++++------ tree-vect-slp.c | 394 ++++++------ ipa-type-escape.c | 432 +++++++------- tree-vect-data-refs.c | 462 +++++++-------- df-problems.c | 552 +++++++++--------- tree-data-ref.c | 558 +++++++++--------- tree-scalar-evolution.c | 576 +++++++++--------- df-scan.c | 580 +++++++++--------- tree-vect-stmts.c | 618 ++++++++++---------- ipa-struct-reorg.c | 706 +++++++++++------------ sel-sched-ir.c | 732 +++++++++++------------ sel-sched.c | 1376 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > The vast majority of outstanding patches won't be affected. Do you offer fixing my patches in case I'm becoming too annoyed to fix the conflicts? I guess not, but I have some queued for stage 1, which don't apply anymore. As for us having allowed such massive changes in the past: e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00417.html (and the surrounding thread) or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg00561.html say something different. In my mind it's very simple: trailing whitespace poses exactly _no_ problem (except of being against the coding standard), hence removing them should be weighed fairly aggressively against any disadvantage. Basically if even just one patch in the wild could possibly be broken by a whitespace change, that wouldn't also be broken by non-whitespace, then it simply should not be done. But I don't want to discuss whitespace policies actually, I want that HJ follows patch submission policies, and I want this checkin be reverted or removed. Ciao, Michael.
