Re: Rewriting the type system

[Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>]

Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:

> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 
>> Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
>> 
>> > It's because, for whatever reason, you don't take the time to make
>> > your changes correct.
>> 
>> Now that's simply bullshit.
> 
> OK OK.  For openers, let's agree not to do personal accusations and
> profanity on the list.  Flame each other in private please, it will
> feel just as good and not waste everybody else's time.
> 
>> > Here we have, in the space of less than a dozen lines of code:
>> >
>> > - host == target assumptions (why are you applying `*' to
>> >   target-format data?)
>> >
>> > - sizeof (foo) assumptions (what is 8?  what is 12?)
>> 
>> Neat, but that code was written 2 years ago, when i was first starting
>> gdb development.
>> It was introduced into value_rtti_type, and copied in the gnuv3 rtti
>> type because gnuv3-abi.c was based on gnuv2-abi.c, which  was based on
>> all that code.
> 
> Dan, if it's mistaken, it's mistaken; excuses and history aren't really
> that interesting.  We all have things we're not that proud of, myself
> probably more than anybody.  Let's fix them and go on to the next
> thing.

Um, it's not exactly broken and in need of fixing, it only exists in a
patch where it was specifically disabled, because I knew it didn't work.
So Jim's just taking something from a patch I submitted to actually
get some long overdue work *started*, where in fact, that code wasn't
even enabled. It was never intended to *stay
that way* for very long, since i had a patch that does it the right
way .  But I couldn't very well submit patches that depend on other
patches, without having those other patches approved first.

So, basically, Jim's bitching about something that's not even in the
gdb source, and even if it had been, would have been disabled.

> 
>> > why should I bother to read your patches?
>> 
>> Because as maintainer, it's your job?
> 
> You're right here, Dan.  Everybody here talks about maintenance as
> if it's some kind of signal honor, but no, it's just a responsibility,
> like peer-reviewing scientific papers.  You don't get to read the
> title and say "Oh, Dr. Luser again, straight to the trash it goes."
> Gotta read the whole thing and provide meaningful feedback, and
> worse, you're expected to do it within a certain time period.  The
> worse the patch, the more work it will be to review.

> 
>> > You have an extensive history of reverted changes:
> 
> Jim, everybody who's worked extensively on GCC or GDB has a history
> of reverted changes.  It we waited until we were sure that each change
> was perfect, progress would be appallingly slow.  Every day the GCC
> mainline gets patches that raise the hairs on the back of my neck,
> and I don't relax until I've confirm they don't break the target for
> which I'm responsible.  Some of the patches do break GCC; the patch
> gets fixed or reverted, and everybody moves on.
> 
>> [...on and on...]
>> It's nice of you to try to imply that most of my patches are wrong, when they
>> aren't.
> 
> Both of you are in the wrong here.  Jim, you know as well as anyone
> that the C++ symbol handling parts of GDB are not so neatly partitioned
> that you can review symbol patches without knowing more than a bit about
> C++, and Dan, you should be able to admit mistakes in your patches, fix
> them and resubmit, rather than flaming the reviewer of the patch.

I didn't flame him for reviewing that patch, I thanked him when he did
it. He's pulling the code
from a patch that was never committed, and code that wasn't even enabled by
default in that patch (unless by mistake. At least in the tree that
he's pulling that code from, i have a comment above gnuv3_rtti_type,
and the abi_ops initialization, to redo gnuv3_rtti_type. So if it is
in the actual patch he's got, he's got an old patch).
A work in progress, if you will. In fact, it had to be. The v3 abi was
still a moving target at the time it was originally written. 

I'm happy to admit mistakes in my patch.
I'm happy to say that the code he quoted is broken as all get out.
It's an ugly, amazing, piece of crap.
That's why
1.  If you look, it's not in the gdb sources.
2.  Even in my sources, I noted it was a broken piece of crap, and
    needed to be rewritten.

I'm also happy to admit that I needed, and asked for, help on
getting the v3 abi stuff done once the base abstraction was done.
The ABI documents are somewhat complex to follow, as most C++ ABI's are.
Hopefully, whoever takes over C++ will have an easier job, and
hopefully, I helped to make that possible.  Apparently, I haven't.
Oh well, it won't be the first thing i've failed at, and it won't be
the last.
> 
> There is plenty of room to criticize both maintainer responsiveness
> and patch quality without turning it into a spitting match, and I'm
> disappointed to see the development process sink to this level.
So am I, but i'm not going to let someone try to smear me in public.
Sorry.

--Dan
> 
> Stan

-- 
"I went to the hardware store and bought some used paint.  It was
in the shape of a house.  I also bought some batteries, but they
weren't included.  So I had to buy them again.
"-Steven Wright