On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> Any concerns/objections? > > I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years > even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the > regenerated files is very small and it helps even in patch review to > actually check if the configure.ac/m4 etc. changes result just in the > expected changes and not some unrelated ones (e.g. caused by user using > wrong version of autoconf/automake etc.). > There can be exceptions, e.g. when in GCC we update from a new version > of Unicode, the regenerated ucnid.h diff can be large and > uname2c.h can be huge, such that it can trigger the mailing list size > limits even when the patch is compressed, see e.g. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636427.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636426.html > But I think most configure or Makefile changes should be pretty small, > usual changes shouldn't rewrite everything in those files.
Which may then call for a policy saying "include generate script diff-s, but don't include generated data file ones"? At least on the binutils side, dealing (for CI) with what e.g. opcodes/*-gen produce ought to be possible by having something along the lines of "maintainer mode light". Jan
