[Tinycc-devel] 答复: mob broken; how to de velop with mob and community

[lifenjoiner]

I agree to be conservative to already successful projects.

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden 代表 Roy Tam
> 发送时间: 2014年5月4日 7:09
> 收件人: address@hidden
> 抄送: jiang
> 主题: Re: [Tinycc-devel] mob broken; how to develop with mob and community
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 2014-05-04 2:44 GMT+08:00 Michael Matz <address@hidden>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > okay, are the last commits to mob from jiang meant as joke or vandalism?
> >
> > * 32bit code generation is hosed already in the testsuite, * gawk doesn't
> > work anymore even for x86_64,
> > * arm codegen is broken already in the testsuite (adding an internal
> >   compiler error)
> > * they contain ugly white-space changes making review exceedingly hard
> > * despite the unnecessarily hard review I think there are numerous
> >   problems in the actual implementation:
> >   + the new parse_number uses inexact floating point directly (e.g. 1.0L/b
> >     when b==10 isn't exactly representable, cumulating errors while
> >     parsing)
> >   + There's a new subtype VT_VLS meaning VLA plus STRUCT, which makes no
> >     sense at all (VLA is VL _array_)
> >   + TREG_MEM (also new) doesn't follow convention for type flags, and
> >     seems like a layering violation
> >   + It reverts a cleanup by Thomas (eda2c756edc4dca004ba217) without
> >     discussion
> >   + It renames libtcc1.a to libcrt.a, thereby trading a sensibly
> >     tcc-specific name for something tcc-specific with something generic
> >     (what if gcc had libcrt as well?)
> >   + It increases VT_STRUCT_SHIFT to 20, breaking bitfields larger than 31
> >     bits (we needs 12 bits to encode bitfield position and size, so the
> >     maximum bit shift can be 19
> >   + It changes gv2() so that VT_CMP/VT_JMP results aren't special-cased
> >     anymore, without obvious compensation in all its users to avoid the
> >     errors that the comment specifically mentioned
> >   + It implements some strange non-standard preprocessor extension
> >     push_macro/pop_macro (as pragmas) without discussion; it enlargens
> >     some heavily used internal data structures for this.
> >   + It adds some "fix x86-64 vla" commit, without testcase showing what's
> >     actually broken, and for that shuffles the internal code generations
> >     in large and unobvious ways (and removes the correct calls to alloca()
> >     on x86-64 PE)
> >
> > And that's just what I saw on a cursory read of the commits.  Due to the
> > white-space changes the more intricate parts are terrible to review and I've
> > skipped them.
> >
> > When I wrote above "without discussion", then this was just for the most
> > controversial parts.  It's true for all the patches.  I've seen no messages
> > at all from jiang to this mailing list.  No discussion about implementation
> > approaches, no discussions about bugs, no nothing.  The commit messages are
> > mostly non-informative as well.
> >
> > All in all I think this approach is pretty unacceptable, but others here
> > might differ.  If the patch series were a smaller then the problems in it
> > could reasonably be fixed after the fact by others.  But as it stands we now
> > have something in which every single one of the 22 topmost patches (ignoring
> > the white-space fixup patch from grischka) has issues.
> >
> > If it were just my project I'd be tempted to revert the whole mob state to
> > be before your (jiangs) patches, and expect you to work with the community
> > to fix what you actually wanted to fix or improve.  (From the patch series
> I
> > gather that one thing you wanted to fix was parameter passing on stack when
> > memcpy is needed).  It the very minimum you have to subscribe to this
> > mailing list (that's even listed in the mob rules), and of course also take
> > part in discussions.  You also have to _review_ your patches before
> > commiting (you would have seen the useless white-space changes) and write
> > meaningful commit messages.
> >
> > Any opinions from others?
> >
> 
> IMO I'd urge jiang to create fork in github instead.

I have contacted him on QQ before, but no response.
Jiang, I found your fork on https://gitcafe.com/weixiao/wxx

I prefer only examined (actual use) patches should be pushed or merged.

> 
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Michael.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tinycc-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel