This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Generate Complex functions from a common template.
- From: "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:47:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Generate Complex functions from a common template.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover dot 1467323999 dot git dot murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <ce06c4c6-22f7-51ee-fdfc-a29c7d7e3a46 at redhat dot com> <b7628734-6de8-83c7-83b7-2c39eaefcb6d at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <CAKCAbMjCm+3XOmO2w+zscKJZ-NQYN1CR1vbyc9EVxQiKqa0g2w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 07/01/2016 10:15 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Paul E. Murphy
> <murphyp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> I toyed around with various levels and options, none seem to
>> a good job of handling the renames. I'm not sure there is a
>> one size fits all solution to getting a good, concise patch.
>>
>> A thorough review might involve diffing the b_*.c file with
>> the equivalent real type file pre-patch.
>
> Is it feasible for you to divide each patch that renames files into
> one chunk that _just_ performs renames, and another that makes content
> changes? Obviously they would need to be squashed back together on
> landing, otherwise the tree would be broken in the
> renamed-but-not-edited changeset, but it would make it much easier to
> review. And I realize this might be a huge amount of tedious manual
> work.
That's a substantial amount of shuffling. Let me twist that
idea a bit further.
I think an acceptable workaround is to prepend the latter four
patches with a patch to copy the double version to the b_ prefixed
file. It won't break anything intermittently, and preserve the
changes in git rather than the mailing list.