On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> Well, they are at least magic numbers and heuristics that apply > generally and not only to the single issue in sphinx. And in > fact how it works for sphinx _is_ magic. > >> Second, I suggest that you need to rephrase "I can make you" and >> re-send your reply. > > Sorry for my bad english. Consider it meaning that I'd rather have > you think about a more proper solution. That's what patch review > is about after all, no? Sometimes a complete re-write (which gets > more difficult which each of the patches "enhancing" the not ideal > current state) is the best thing to do. Richard, The values of the heuristics may be "magic", but Bill believes the heuristics are testing the important characteristics. The heuristics themselves are controlled by hooks, so the target can set the correct values for their own requirements. The concern is that a general cost infrastructure is too general. And, based on history, all ports simply will copy the boilerplate from the first implementation. It also may cause more problems because the target has relatively little information to be able to judge heuristics at that point in the middle-end. If the targets start to get too "cute" or too complicated, it may cause more problems or more confusion about why more complicated heuristics are not effective and not producing the expected results. I worry about creating another machine dependent reorg catch-all pass. Maybe an incremental pre- and/or post- cost hook would be more effective. I will let Bill comment. Thanks, David
