On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

I totally disagree that you should be changing anything
during these consolidations.

And I didn't say so, I actually *said* I don't think
that should be done.

I was just remarking some really bad workarounds end
up in more generic code now, and as such need to be
fixed.  Not now, but *later*.

quoted

Move the code around in one pass where you can _VERIFY_
that things are precisely the same and won't break.

Then later you can get fancy and change things however you
wish.

Yes exactly.

quoted

Everything so far is pure whining, and has nothing to do with
the substance of what Stephen is trying to accomplish, a
_CODE CONSOLIDATION_.  So please don't get in the way of that
effort.

I'm not standing in the way here, I'm quite happy with
what Stephen is doing, great job.

I'm just pointing out some bugs/workarounds in the
merged code (that were there before, sure) -- it would
be lovely if they at least could be commented as being
not-quite-right in the new code so no one reading the
code will assume it is doing the "right thing".


Segher

And to be perfectly clear, I agreed with _Segher_
just as he outlines here.

Yes, it needs to be done.  No, it does not happen
in this consolidation step.  It happens in some
subsequent step that should not be forgotten.

jdl