From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Eisele Subject: Re: Fwd: dependency tee from c parser entities downto token Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:14:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4FABB132.1070308@gmail.com> References: <4F967865.60809@gaisler.com> <4FA4EAD6.1040206@gmail.com> <4FA5B9E8.7010208@gmail.com> <4FA767BD.8060703@gaisler.com> <4FA8BF7D.60606@gaisler.com> <4FAA3D50.8080901@gaisler.com> <4FAB5DEA.5060009@gaisler.com> <4FAB6268.7070908@gaisler.c om> <4FAB8F9E.8040205@gaisler.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:39214 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759311Ab2EJMLH (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 08:11:07 -0400 Received: by lbbgm6 with SMTP id gm6so997990lbb.19 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 05:11:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Konrad Eisele , Linux-Sparse On 05/10/2012 01:25 PM, Christopher Li wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Konrad Eisele wrote: >> >> You didnt get it. The "_cannot_" was ironic. There is always >> a way you can fit things. The point is you want to implement it >> yourself, exaclty the way you think it should be done, then do it. >> I've nothing to contribute. >> I've also nothing against you personally, only against this >> ping pong emailing. It takes too much time. > > Well, the __cannot__ part is base on your reply you seems don't > wish to continue this discussion. > > A change like this is bound to need some careful discussion and > planing. Yes, I am guilt of only accepting patches meet some subjective > stander of mine. But so is to any self respect project maintainers. > I would rather spend some time to do it right than commit some thing > I would regret later on. Do a B(B(x)) and your sym->parent linked-list will fail. -- Konrad > > I heard you that this discussion is taking long. That is why I offer > to write up the core sparse part of the change myself and let you > provide feed back to shape it the way we both can happy. > That is the agreement we have earlier right? > > So I did exactly what I said I am going to do, now you are calling > me my way vs your way? > > My evaluation function is straightly technical merit: > > - I prefer patch minimize performance impact on other clients don't > use this feature. > - I prefer simpler interface over complicate one. > > To me, believe it or not, It is never about my way vs your way. > If you submit a perfect patch, I would more than happy to apply it. > Apply a patch is much easier than writing one myself. > > Chris >