On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > What is holding up this patch still? Ke Wen has pinged it every month > > since May, and there has still not been a review.
Richard Sandiford wrote: > FAOD (since I'm on cc:), I don't feel qualified to review this. > Tree-level loop stuff isn't really my area. And Richard Biener wrote: > I don't like it, it feels wrong but I don't have a good suggestion > that had positive feedback. Since a reviewer / approver is indirectly > responsible for at least the design I do not want to ack this patch. > Bin made forward progress on the other parts of the series but clearly > there's somebody missing with the appropriate privileges who feels > positive about the patch and its general direction. > > Sorry to be of no help here. How unfortunate :-( So, first off, this will then have to work for next stage 1 to make any progress. Rats. But what could have been done differently that would have helped? Of course Ke Wen could have written a better patch (aka one that is more acceptable); either of you could have made your current replies earlier, so that it is clear help needs to be sought elsewhere; and I could have pushed people earlier, too. No one really did anything wrong, I'm not seeking who to blame, I'm just trying to find out how to prevent deadlocks like this in the future (where one party waits for replies that will never come). Is it just that we have a big gaping hole in reviewers with experience in such loop optimisations? Segher
