[M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Tony Hosking]

I already fixed it!

On 5 Mar 2010, at 08:57, Jay K wrote:

> I understand that. I often am "like that".
> But we are our own consumers. The code has probably been unused a long time, but I didn't check.
> We can put it in when we need it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_ain%27t_gonna_need_it
>  
>  
>  - Jay
> 
>  
> > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:45:12 -0600
> > From: rodney_bates at lcwb.coop
> > To: m3commit at elegosoft.com
> > Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jay K wrote:
> > > Maybe remove it instead? Unused suggests untested, not working.
> > 
> > I am with Tony on this one. Well-designed code has always had places where
> > it will handle a more general input space than current use-cases demand.
> > 
> > Always removing everything from what is handled reflects the view that a
> > program is a one-time thing that never changes. Putting in some things
> > that follow a consistent general pattern reflects the view that a program
> > is an evolving thing. Excepting a very few programs that are either trivial
> > or very little-used, the latter assumption is always the correct one.
> > 
> > Of course, you can't put everything imaginable in. But things that are part
> > of a general pattern are good candidates. Nobody could _ever_ design very
> > useful code, if not following this principal.
> > 
> > I once, in my very first job, had to rework a big test driver written in
> > such a way that it handled exactly the set of test cases that had been
> > originally specified and not a thing more. Nobody could add any new cases
> > as things evolved. The internal structure bore no resemblance to the
> > pattern of the inputs. I could only throw it all out except for some
> > low-level routines and start over.
> > 
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> > > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:29:04 -0500
> > > To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> > > CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
> > > Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> > > 
> > > It turns out not actually to be used by m3front. But it is defined by 
> > > m3middle, so let's support it and not get bitten in the arse if/when 
> > > m3front ever uses it.
> > > 
> > > On 3 Mar 2010, at 18:45, Jay K wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't see where it is used.
> > > I built all of "std" with the gcc_assert(0) and <* ASSERT FALSE *>
> > > (in m3back).
> > > The parameters are being passed to memset in the wrong order.
> > > Compare it to m3cg_zero.
> > > I was actually looking to see if parameters are left to right or
> > > right to left, I looked at these two examples and decided they can't
> > > both be correct.
> > > 
> > > - Jay
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu <mailto:hosking at cs.purdue.edu>
> > > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:02:36 -0500
> > > To: hosking at cs.purdue.edu <mailto:hosking at cs.purdue.edu>
> > > CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com <mailto:m3commit at elegosoft.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> > > 
> > > Please say how this is broken.
> > > 
> > > On 3 Mar 2010, at 10:57, Tony Hosking wrote:
> > > 
> > > Huh? I see it in the front-end!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 3 Mar 2010, at 10:21, Jay Krell wrote:
> > > 
> > > CVSROOT: /usr/cvs
> > > Changes by: jkrell at birch. 10/03/03 10:21:42
> > > 
> > > Modified files:
> > > cm3/m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/gcc/m3cg/: parse.c 
> > > 
> > > Log message:
> > > zero_n is incorrect and never used, put gcc_assert(0) in it
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3commit/attachments/20100305/f6877d36/attachment-0002.html>