Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>]

> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:05:58 -0500
> 
> Andrew continually claimed provably untrue things that could do nothing 
> but piss off people involved in the hard work that went on in the gcc 
> tree-ssa branch (schedule slippage, too many resources consumed, etc)

I think you are exaggerating.  Andrew expressed concerns about
technical issues based on whatever information he had.  I don't know
whom he was talking to, and I'm ignorant of the subject matter because
I don't track GCC lists, but my outsider's judgement is that his
argument was of a technical nature, and I don't see why someone would
spot any sign of malice in what he wrote.  He might be mistaken, as we
all are sometimes, but his is a genuine concern, not a wish to piss
off.

> This is generally known as trolling.

I think you know Andrew all too well to suspect that he is trollying.

> I'm seriously concerned that if he thinks the tree-ssa branch is 
> somehow an example of a bad development plan, that gdb development is 
> going down the wrong path.

I understand his comments differently: that he fears that merging
large branches _could_ have adverse side effects if things get out of
control.  In other words, it was a general comment on large merges,
not something too specific about the specific case of tree-ssa.

> I'm also seriously concerned that if he somehow thinks DW_OP_piece 
> support is more important than the intercu-branch, that he is also 
> going down the wrong path.

It's not more important in general, but since we are preparing to cut
the 6.1 branch in a few days, DW_OP_piece might be a good thing to do
now, while delaying intercu-branch merge till after the release.
It's a question of timing, not of an abstract importance.