Re: reviewers for wide int.
On 04/23/2014 04:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote: On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved quickly. Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to ask for help. There is a large class of bugs that can creep in due to the subtle change of interface from double-int to wide-int. These happen outside of the wide-int.[ch] code and seem statistically more likely by a large margin than bugs in wide-int.[ch]. The good news, resolving them is easy enough with side-by-side comparisons (say of dump files and .s files). Most of those fixes I’d expect to be trivial (for some definition of trivial). Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry). But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainership areas. richi. This is not without precedent. The dataflow reviewers are authorized to review changes to data flow anywhere in the rtl level and back ends. In the many years that that has been in place none of us "went rogue".We will be conservative. kenny Richard.
Re: reviewers for wide int.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Mike Stump wrote: > On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > > > >>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a > >>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have > >>> tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved > >>> quickly. > >> Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? > > if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how > > much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is > > reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to > > ask for help. > > There is a large class of bugs that can creep in due to the subtle > change of interface from double-int to wide-int. These happen outside > of the wide-int.[ch] code and seem statistically more likely by a large > margin than bugs in wide-int.[ch]. The good news, resolving them is > easy enough with side-by-side comparisons (say of dump files and .s > files). Most of those fixes I’d expect to be trivial (for some > definition of trivial). Yeah. Note that it's difficult to define "reviewer for code that uses wide-int", thus my question (that is, what do you put into MAINTAINERS and how would you interpret the entry). But as always we apply common sense to reviewer/maintainership areas. Richard. -- Richard Biener SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend"orffer
Re: reviewers for wide int.
On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > >>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a >>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have >>> tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved >>> quickly. >> Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? > if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how > much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is > reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to > ask for help. There is a large class of bugs that can creep in due to the subtle change of interface from double-int to wide-int. These happen outside of the wide-int.[ch] code and seem statistically more likely by a large margin than bugs in wide-int.[ch]. The good news, resolving them is easy enough with side-by-side comparisons (say of dump files and .s files). Most of those fixes I’d expect to be trivial (for some definition of trivial).
Re: reviewers for wide int.
On 04/22/2014 03:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: Richi, David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing reviewers for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be useful to make Richard Sandiford, Mike Stump and myself reviewers at least for this release cycle. While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved quickly. Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on how much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what is reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know when to ask for help. Kenny Richard. Thanks, Kenny
Re: reviewers for wide int.
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: >Richi, > >David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing >reviewers >for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any > >reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be >useful >to make Richard Sandiford, Mike Stump and myself reviewers at least for > >this release cycle. > >While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a > >change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have >tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved >quickly. Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right? Richard. >Thanks, > >Kenny
