Sorry, I decided to give more than 20 hours for folks to weigh in, and then time got away from me. I'll revert jiang's changes with a push some time around June 23 (tomorrow), 9:00PM New York time.
By the way, if the instructions at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git are supposed to be the community rules, jiang was not really breaking any. We should probably work with a different approach. I suggest that individuals who have ideas should do the following: 1) Discuss bug reports or feature requests on the mailing list. 2) If individuals on the mailing list agree that the idea is a good one, the individual should publish their work on a public git hosting site and submit a pull request on the mailing list. 3) After somebody with commit access has checked it out, they can pull it into the official release branch. Thoughts? How do we change the instructions for the readme on repo.or.cz? David On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, grischka <gris...@gmx.de> wrote: > David Mertens wrote: > >> And now lifenjoiner has jumped in, adding patches without discussion. >> >> Can we forcibly revert tcc's mob branch at http://repo.or.cz/ back to >> grishka's commit from 4-17 and cherry pick grishka's and Thomas' commits >> that were made thereafter? This will cause confusion for anybody who has >> pulled since mid-April, but will help ensure that tcc has higher quality >> commits. >> >> I can work on this tomorrow if others think this is a good idea. >> >> David >> > > I'd vote for the same result but to keep the history (i.e. push one commit > to revert the whole series). We could keep the warnings, or some, maybe. > Some comments would be nice, maybe. > > Here is what I found: > > jiang Add warning 4 > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/5d0785d0e1d71860b61b1c365ff46c > 8e399ad0e6 > - bad name for global variable 'is_force' - force what? > - needs checking but might be ok. > > jiang Delete a = (a > = 0)? A: -a; \ > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/3d608d4b54edfdd9f394f06d2be074 > 1387ac733a > - causes regression (win32) > > jiang int main() > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/e5e7f488e22190f893152c0b2f73e9 > ba499c4169 > - causes regression. Test case: > > struct { unsigned a:9, b:7, c:5; } s; > s.a = s.b = s.c = 3; > printf("%d / %d / %d\n", s.a, s.b, s.c); > --> 219 / 91 / 3 > > jiang Let init_putz one-time generation > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/d316836008f4738d5a020b28aa33e9 > 6a82a81aca > - may crash the compiler (see gcc warning) > - too risky, anyway > > jiang restore 2dd8587c2f32d17a2cd0443a60a614a3fa9bbe29 > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/c6345b5a8af36d5577307860644010 > b1528257d3 > - obviously mixed features without any description > - far from good implementations > > jiang When tcc.exe update, abitest-tcc.exe not updated. For... > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/5a514107c420bd8dd724c27d1e7e90 > 5571a6aba5 > - valid concern but sloppy solution (should force the build of > abitest-tcc.exe) > > --- grischka > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel