On 09/18/14 15:26, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hi,
it isn't true that I didn't replied to Iant. I did this on IRC. As I
explained there already, this hunk about thunks is more consolidation
of code-paths in that function, and not really part of a feature. As
this code-path isn't prominent mark being Darwin-code - and please
don't take me wrong, but it seems to be until now the only target
reporting this issues - and therefore I strongly see the issue to be
solved for Darwin. I don't see that this changes needs an additional
testcase demonstration on a already regression-tested target that it
doesn't break ... This is somehow like asking for gcc-testcase
demostration that gcc's darwin target isn't responsible for earth's
warming ...
I found this a bit difficult to parse, so I'm going to try and
summarize, please tell me if I've got it right or wrong.
The code in question is not explicitly marked as being Darwin specific;
however, to date we've only managed to exercise it on Darwin.
Therefore, any fix is likely to be fairly specific to Darwin's unique
characteristics.
Furthermore, Kai believes that any new test would be redundant with the
existing tests that are currently failing on Darwin.
Is that a correct summary?
Jeff
